[Uosenate] UO Senate, Student Ticket Fee motion

[William Harbaugh]

Dear Senators:

As you know our five ASUO student senators and eight co-sponsors are bringing a resolution to the Senate this Wednesday supporting ASUO’s decision to end the $1.8M student ticket contract with the Athletics Department and repurpose that part of the student “I-Fee” controlled by ASUO towards programs to support students’ basic needs.

The resolution also opposes the administration’s proposal to create a new mandatory fee (about $2M when fully implemented) which will be controlled by the UO administration, to pay athletics for providing student tickets for football and basketball games, using a lottery scheme.

This resolution is here<https://senate.uoregon.edu/senate-motions/us2021-08-supporting-asuos-decision-repurpose-student-i-fee-money-and-opposing-new>. The gist is:

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED THAT the University Senate calls on UO Administration and the Board of Trustees to respect ASUO’s autonomy and authority over their own budget.

2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED THAT the University Senate supports the decision by the ASUO Student Senate to reject the proposals from the UO Administration that ASUO send a portion of the money they have saved as a result of not paying for tickets during the pandemic to UO’s Athletic Department, and to instead support basic needs programs and return money to students.

2.3 BE IT FINALLY MOVED THAT the University Senate opposes the new mandatory Athletics fee on students for the ticket lottery, and calls on President Schill to work with the Athletics Department to provide adequate funding for student tickets from the Athletic Department’s other sources of funding, or adopt a voluntary plan by which those students who want to attend intercollegiate sporting events can purchase a package of tickets from the Athletic Department for the student section at reduced prices.

I’ve been in many past discussions in the Senate and committees on the subject of the athletic budget, and I’ve heard many arguments against attempts to get the athletics department to pay more of its own way. Given the way these discussions usually go, I want to note that opposing this new fee is not a statement of opposition to college athletics, or to UO’s athletic department. This new fee is unlikely to matter much to athletics.

The AD’s overall revenue for FY 19-20 (just operating revenue) was $140M. It grows at about 3-5% a year, so this $1.8M is about 1.4% of their total budget and about 1/3 of the annual increase to their budget. Their revenues last year included $26M in media rights, $8M from the NCAA, PAC-12, and bowl games, $6M from concessions, $18M from royalties and licensing, and $298M in donations (this last presumably includes gifts for capital, e.g. Hayward Field). See https://secureservercdn.net/50.62.89.79/09b.278.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2020-NCAA-report.pdf

The student section of football and basketball games is an important part of the TV show, and if the UO students don’t pay a mandatory fee for tickets, or if UO athletics does not provide a voluntary option for discounted tickets as at for example Texas, the athletic department has the means and the motive to provide free tickets to interested students.

I’ve often heard the argument that a successful athletic department is important for recruiting out of state students. I’ve heard many anecdotes about this, pro and con. The empirical evidence on this is very mixed. The most recent paper I’ve found is “The Impact of College Athletic Success on Donations and Applicant Quality“<https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/7/2/19>, Baumer and Zimbalist (2019):

Abstract: For the 65 colleges and universities that participate in the Power Five athletic conferences (Pac 12, Big 10, SEC, ACC, and Big 12), the football and men’s basketball teams are highly visible. While these programs generate tens of millions of dollars in revenue annually, very few of them turn an operating “profit.” Their existence is thus justified by the claim that athletic success leads to ancillary benefits for the academic institution, in terms of both quantity (e.g., more applications, donations, and state funding) and quality (e.g., stronger applicants, lower acceptance rates, higher yields). Previous studies provide only weak support for some of these claims. Using data from 2006–2016 and a multiple regression model with corrections for multiple testing, we find that while a successful football program is associated with more applicants, there is no effect on the composition of the student body or (with a few caveats) funding for the school through donations or state appropriations.
In any case a $2M mandatory fee is unlikely to make the difference between a winning and losing season.
I’ve also heard the argument that a successful athletics program improves campus life by creating a sense of group belonging. This seems plausible, but should be seen in the context of decreased student grades during winning seasons, e.g. Lindo, Jason M., Isaac D. Swensen, and Glen R. Waddell. 2012. "Are Big-Time Sports a Threat to Student Achievement?" American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4 (4): 254-74.<https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.4.4.254> and The impact of college football on academic achievement, Rey Hernández-Julián and Kurt W. Rotthoff, here<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775714000806?via=ihub>.
However, again, regardless of which way you feel about this issue, instituting a new mandatory fee is unlikely to impact either group cohesion or student grades - our athletic department will continue on with or without this fee.
I hop you will join our students in opposing this new mandatory fee.

Bill Harbaugh
UO Economics
harbaugh at uoregon.edu<mailto:harbaugh at uoregon.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uoregon.edu/pipermail/uosenate/attachments/20210224/f8571ada/attachment-0001.html>