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. What became of this project? Anyone know?

  2. Scott, could you post an enlarged photo of the exterior of the building? This will be a great addition to Walnut Street. This area will only continue to develop with additions like this. Also, please give us more updates on the "Cultural Trail light" expansion. Also a great move for the city, as long as there is maintenance money set aside.

  3. Great story IBJ! Citizens don't have a real sense of the financial magnitude of supporting Indy's sports and tourism sector. The CIB was a brilliant idea for creating a highly integrated public-private partnership to support this sector from the economic activity it generates. Unfortunately, most folks think the benefits of that economic activity accrue directly to the City budget, and it doesn't. So though the CIB is facing lean times (covering its costs while maintaining minimally acceptable reserves), the City is operating with deficit - less tax revenue than expenses each year - with a very fragile reserve balance. That's why it's so challenging for the City to fund basic needs or new intitatives (e.g. pre-k education; new jail), and some credit rating agencies have downgraded Indy from it's past stellar AAA status. More reporting on City finances would be welcomed.

  4. Sure, I'll admit that it bugs me to see that the IBJ.COM censors it's blog posts almost as much as the D of I does when someone points out the falsehoods and fabrications. _____But I think it bothers me almost as much that Captain/Defender/Disciple get his yanked too. You see, those of us with a sense of integrity, humanity, compassion, and a need for fact based opinion WANT to see all of his screeds posted. It makes our point so much better than we can do it ourselves.

  5. We're conflating two very different topics. Voter fraud is a myth and excessive gun violence is all too real. I just hope rational gunowners decide to stop being shouted down by the, well, let's call them "less rational" ones.