The Relationship between Big-Time College Football and State Appropriations for Higher Education

Abstract

Do big-time college sports affect state appropriations to public colleges and universities? Little attention has been given to the possibility that big-time athletic programs generate economic benefits for a university at the state capital. The paper estimates a reduced form model of the determination of annual state appropriations to public universities, including institution-specific effects to control for unobservable factors like mission and reputation that could affect appropriations. The results suggest that institutions fielding Division I-A football programs receive 8% more in annual state appropriations — about $2.6 million in real 1982 dollars — than those without such programs. Bowl appearances and national rankings do not lead to additional appropriations. These results suggest that the total economic benefit associated with big-time athletic programs may be larger than previously thought and provide insight into why the number of institutions fielding Division I-A college football programs increased by 10% from 1998 to 2002.

Keywords

higher education finance intercollegiate athletics political influence

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Becker

G. S.

(1983). A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 371–400.

Creedy

, & Francois

(1990). Financing higher education and majority voting. Journal of Public Economics, 43, 181–200.

Creedy

, & Francois

(1993). Financing higher education: A general equilibrium public choice approach. Economic Record, 69, 1–9.

Fulks

D. L.

(various years). Revenues and expenses of intercollegiate athletics programs. Mission Hills, KS: The NCAA Press.

Garvin

D. A.

(1980). The economics of university behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Goff

(2000). Effects of university athletics on the university. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 85–104.

Green

(2004). Changing priorities for sport in England: The emergence of elite sport development as a key policy concern. Leisure Studies, 32, 365–385.

Hoenack

, & Pierro

(1990) An econometric model of a public university's income and enrollments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 13, 403–423.

Humphreys

B. R.

(2000) Do business cycles affect state appropriations to higher education? Southern Economic Journal, 67, 398–413.

10.

Litan

R. E.

, Orszag

J. M.

, & Orszag

P. R.

(2003, August). The empirical effects of collegiate athletics: An interim report, Sebago Associates, report commissioned by the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

11.

McPherson

M. S.

, & Schapiro

M. O.

(1997) Financing undergraduate education: Designing national policies. National Tax Journal, 50, 557–71.

12.

NASBO Information Brief. (1996). State innovations in higher education finance. Washington, DC: National Association of State Budget Officers.

13.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (various years). NCAA football. Mission Hills, KS: The NCAA Press.

14.

Shapiro

B. J.

(1983) John Hannah and the growth of big-time intercollegiate athletics at Michigan State University. Journal of Sport History, 10, 26–40.

15.

Zimbalist

(1999). Unpaid professionals. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.