Trends in NCAA Athletic Spending

Abstract

We develop and empirically test a model of intercollegiate athletic department expenditure decisions. The model extends general dynamic models of nonprice competition and includes the idea that nonprofit athletic departments may simply set expenditure equal to revenues. Own and rival prestige are included in the athletic departments’ utility functions, generating rivalrous interaction. The model predicts that current own and rival investment has multi-period effects on prestige since investment is durable. We test the model using data from National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I athletic programs from 2006-2011, and the models incorporate spatial autocorrelation that captures dynamic rivalrous interaction. Results support the predictions of both models—NCAA Division I athletic programs appear to engage in dynamic nonprice competition in terms of expenditure and spend all revenues generated.

Keywords

NCAA dynamic nonprice competition revenue theory of costs athletic arms race

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anselin

Arribas-Bel

(2013). Spatial fixed effects and spatial dependence in a single cross-section. Papers in Regional Science, 92, 3–17.

Bowen

H. R.

(1980). The costs of higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Carroll

K. A.

Humphreys

B. R.

(2000). Nonprofit decision making and social regulation: The intended and unintended consequences of Title IX. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43, 359–376.

Elhorst

J. P.

(2010). Applied spatial econometrics: Raising the bar. Spatial Economic Analysis, 5, 9–28.

Frank

R. H.

(2004). Challenging the myth: A review of the links among college athletic success, student quality, and donations (Technical report). Washington, DC: Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.

Friedman

(1983). Advertising and oligopolistic equilibrium. Bell Journal of Economics, 14, 464–473.

Getz

Siegfried

J. J.

(2010). What does intercollegiate athletics do to or for colleges and universities? (Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers, 1005). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.

Humphreys

B. R.

(2006). The relationship between big-time college football and state appropriations to higher education. International Journal of Sport Finance, 1, 119–128.

Humphreys

B. R.

Mondello

(2007). Intercollegiate athletic success and donations at NCAA division I institution. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 265–280.

10.

Kahn

L. M.

(2007). Markets: Cartel behavior and amateurism in college sports. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 209–226.

11.

LeSage

Pace

R. K.

(2010). Introduction to spatial econometrics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press.

12.

Orszag

J. M.

Orszag

P. R.

(2005). The empirical effects of collegiate athletics: An update (Technical report). Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association.

13.

Pope

D. G.

Pope

J. C.

(2009). The impact of college sports success on the quantity and quality of student applications. Southern Economic Journal, 75, 750–780.

14.

Pope

D. G.

Pope

J. C.

(2014). Understanding college application decisions why college sports success matters. Journal of Sports Economics, 15, 107–131.

15.

Roberts

M. J.

Samuelson

(1988). An empirical analysis of dynamic, nonprice competition in an oligopolistic industry. The RAND Journal of Economics, 19, 200–220.

16.

Ruseski

J. E.

(1998). Dynamic nonprice competition in a regulated industry: evidence from the Maryland hospital industry (PhD thesis). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.

17.

Williamson

(1964). The economics of discretionary behavior: Managerial objectives in a theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

18.

Winston

G. C.

(2000). The positional arms race in higher education. Williams Project on the Economics of Higher Education, DP-54, Department of Economics, Williams College, Williamstown, MA.