How well does the UW Athletics Program serve the needs of Washington State kids interested in athletic careers?
“To the extent that he thought about public colleges at all, it was only to revel in memories of 1969, when he captained the University of South Carolina football team” : quote describing a lobbyist who managed to divert funds that could have supported the University of South Carolina.
The Seattle Times has run an editorial worthy of the movie Casablanca, they are shocked, shocked that the UW athletic department has been lying when the University of Washington athletic director Scott Woodward claimed to be running “a self-sustaining athletic department accepting no funding from our university.” The boast has been repeated dozens of times, for decades.
The Times comment: “Repetition doesn’t make it true. … In fact, UW athletics has received millions a year from the university. The subsidy was $3.3 million last year, even as Husky athletics posted a net profit of nearly $9 million.”
“The UW’s athletic budget, fattened by a lucrative new TV contract and renewed success on the football field, is projected to rise to $112 million by 2016-17.”
In the meantime the Chronicle of Higher Education reports that Now we have come to a precipice. College students and their families, who just a decade ago paid for about one-third of the cost of their education, are on track to pay for most of it. In nearly half of the states, they already do.
“The UW makes the case that subsidies ensure a healthy reserve, maintain elite facilities and provide a cushion for future down cycles. The UW argues that some competing schools received deeper subsidies and removing the tuition waivers could put it at a disadvantage.”
The Times’ belated discovery that the Huskies’ athletic program costs money, underestimates the problem when the editorialist states that “those arguments can be made about most elements of the UW.” Of course that is not true. The most obvious comparison is with the School of Medicine. Every dollar that the UW School of Medicine takes in as a research grant or contract includes overhead. Overhead is the very real cost of any program, the costs of the buildings, the costs of the maintenance crew, the cost of the administrators who make the program work. Even students supported in pursuit of PhD degrees, yet their tuition paid from research and training grants.
Hidden subsidies to Husky sports probably run in the range of 50% when you consider that the overhead charged by the UW for having research at the UW is 70% or more. Overhead for training grants is considerably less but, unlike football income, the training grants also support tuition costs.
Even looked at as a strictly business matter, Scott Woodward’s claim that the Huskies break even has never made any sense. If the Huskies were a private business they would need to pay rent for the prime territory used by the Stadium as well as pay the costs of maintaining the Stadium and providing security at football games.
The Huskies are not alone. Several studies over the last 10 years and more have shown that no more than one or two public university athletic programs makes money.
The issue here, in my opinion, is not whether the UW should have a professional athletics program. If the state legislature and the Husky alumni want us to have one and are willing to pay full tilt, then we need to be honest about the costs as well as the claimed benefits of the program. As a citizen, rather than just a U Prof, I would ask these question:
How well does the UW Athletics Program serve the needs of Washington State kids interested in athletic careers?
Would 100 full boat scholarships for outstanding academic students bring as much glory and pride as the $3.3 million cost over runs do for the athletic teams?
Read more about the experiences of a Seattle kid who tried to pursue an athletics career at the UW.
Readmore about the UW’s defense of its logo as a symbol of the Huskies
READMORE about the huge increases in tuition at public universities