NCAA, schools need more financial transparency, bill says

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Athletic departments, conferences and the governing body of college sports should be more transparent financially, according to a bill co-sponsored by a pair of U.S. congressmen.

The Standardization of Collegiate Oversight of Revenues and Expenditures Act, or SCORE, was introduced Monday by representatives David Price, a North Carolina Democrat, and Republican Tom Petri of Wisconsin. The bill proposes an overhaul of financial reporting for the National Collegiate Athletic Association and its members in an effort to create more public understanding of the money behind college athletics.

“College sports are one of America’s proudest traditions, but the current system isn’t working equally well for all participants,” Price said in a release on his website. “Constructive, realistic reforms depend on a clear understanding of the financial pressures and benefits of intercollegiate athletics.”

The bipartisan bill comes at a time of unprecedented scrutiny for the Indianapolis-based NCAA and its member institutions, including a handful of lawsuits and an effort by Northwestern University football players to form the first players’ union in college sports.

In broadcast contracts, the NCAA and the five power conferences are guaranteed more than $31 billion. That doesn’t include sources of revenue such as sponsorship, merchandise sales, ticket sales and booster donations.

Public accountability

The bill mentions the NCAA, its member institutions, conferences and any entity that hosts a postseason tournament, such as the College Football Playoff, which debuts next season.

“At a time when outstanding student loan debt is over $1 trillion, it makes sense for the public to have an idea about how colleges and universities account for and use revenue from ticket sales, advertising and contracts,” Petri, a member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, said in the release.

Last week, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held a hearing to evaluate the state of college athletics. NCAA President Mark Emmert said in his testimony that the differences in reporting obligations between public and private institutions were a principal roadblock to greater transparency.

“Accordingly, no consensus has been reached to provide financial data other than in aggregated formats,” Emmert said. “It’s difficult to envision an immediate resolution.”

Public data

All the data requested of individual schools is already collected annually by the NCAA, according to the release. Itemized sport-by-sport reports from public universities are available through Freedom of Information Act requests, as are coaches’ contracts and media deals. Such data from private institutions are not covered by FOIA laws.

The NCAA, a not-for-profit institution, currently publishes financial information on its website, including annual financial statements and revenue distribution plans.

The U.S. Department of Education each year publishes online a small amount of athletic financial data from both public and private institutions. The disclosures lack the detail the bill wants.

This is the third time in less than a year that a bill related to college athletics has been introduced in Congress, according to USA Today.

In August, a bipartisan bill proposed increased due process for NCAA programs accused of misconduct and making four-year scholarships mandatory in contact sports, the paper said. A November bill would have required colleges to provide athletes with benefits when a scholarship is lifted for reasons other than misconduct or academic failure.


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. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.