NCAA quarterly lobbying costs surge during legal fight

Bloomberg News
August 13, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The National Collegiate Athletic Association spent more on congressional lobbying from April to June than it did in the previous three quarters combined, as it fought lawsuits challenging its structure.

After 10 years with little change in lobbying costs, the governing body of college sports rang up $180,000 of expenses in the three months through June, according to public disclosures collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The amount equals the largest amount the Indianapolis-based not-for-profit organization spent in any calendar year since at least 2000. The NCAA is on pace to spend $480,000 on lobbying in 2014, more than double last year.

The expenses, which ordinarily cover three long-standing employees in Washington, D.C., were boosted by costs to prepare for congressional hearings and to respond to congressional inquiries. NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said in an e-mail that the numbers are filed as mandated by law and that the organization had no further comment.

A U.S. district judge ruled last week that the NCAA’s structure creates a cartel that violates antitrust laws by limiting what schools can offer athletes. The NCAA said it will appeal the decision, which would lead to players being paid for their names, images and likeness.

The governing body also faces an antitrust lawsuit brought by labor lawyer Jeffrey Kessler and an attempt by Northwestern University football players to create the first college athletes’ union.

Steady spending

From 2004-13, the NCAA’s calendar-year lobbying costs stayed in the $150,000-$180,000 range, according to center. In the first half of this year, it spent $240,000.

The $60,000 the NCAA spent from January through March equaled the most it had spent in any quarter since at least 2008, when reports were first broken out in three-month blocks.

A pair of U.S. congressmen this year introduced a bipartisan bill calling for more financial transparency at the NCAA, its conferences and affiliate groups.

Another bill calls for large athletic programs to provide more benefits to enrolled athletes who are injured or no longer competing.

The NCAA may pursue an antitrust exemption from Congress as a way to protect itself from lawsuits such as the one brought by Kessler, who helped bring free agency to the National Football League.

Attempts this week to reach members of the House and Senate judiciary committees were unsuccessful.

Emmert testimony

NCAA President Mark Emmert testified last month to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which is examining issues including sexual assault by athletes, academic fraud and the growth of revenue in college sports.

The NCAA spent $160,000 on lobbying in fiscal 2013, according to its tax filing, an 11-percent drop from the prior year and 6.7 percent more than fiscal 2011. The governing body’s fiscal year ends Aug. 31, accounting for the slight difference between the numbers in its tax filing and those collected by center, which operates the Opensecrets.org website.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

  2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

  3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

  4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

  5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.