Coaches Salaries

Bob Stoops, head football coach at the University of Oklahoma, recently signed a contract extension through 2018 for $34.5 million. In Stoops 12-year tenure as a head coach, the Oklahoma Sooners haven’t had a losing season or an unsold ticket. Their football program brings in an estimated $37 million a year. Yet, Stoops, among others, is criticized for making too much money. How much is a really good football coach worth to a university?

In addition to brining in revenue for their respective university, good athletic programs create a national reputation and nearly consistent positive press. As one Forbes author wrote, “I think I would pay $6 million to get $37 million.”

The University of Florida made history in 1995 when they made Bobby Bowden the first coach to make more than $1,000,000. Now, about half of NCAA D I-A coaches make over a million, and about a quarter of them make over two million (read more here).

Certainly there are other costs to running a football program (other staff, equipment, travel, scholarships) but these are rarely as controversial as a head coach’s salary. This year, every Colorado State Student will pay $103.85 in student fees that goes directly to athletics. This comes to around $2.4 million, about the same as they get from direct institutional support and from ticket sales.

Whatever the cost of the head coach, I don’t believe it’s the real issue. Paying $5 million a year instead of $1 million seems like a good investment to nearly guarantee consistent winning, filling seats, national publicity, and increased alumni giving. There are very few coaches, especially in competitive nationally televised sports like football and basketball, who can produce consistent winning.

At most institutions, the bulk of the head coach’s salary doesn’t come from tuition dollars but from multimedia contracts (upwards of $50 million) and ticket sales (upwards of $30 million). But after it’s all said and done, do athletics still make money for the university.

ESPN reports that there are about 14 profitable sports programs in the country. That is, the direct benefits (ticket sales, jerseys) outweigh the direct expenses (scholarships, travel, salaries). So, should institutions invest more money into coaches, facilities, recruitment, and scholarships so they can become one of the top 14? Or should they work with a balanced budget that doesn’t lose money and charge students for them to have an athletic program?

Some believe we are “selling out” and creating a culture where going to colleges over-value athletics. We are often reminded that most college coaches make more than the president, and that faculty (who do the real teaching) have a fraction the salary of a head coach. Although there might be some anecdotal evidence that suggests a great athletic team diminishes the academic quality of the institution, I have found nothing substantial. It seems every year a faculty member writes an article on how they contribute more to society to a football coach. Their intentions are fine – refocusing the institution back on student learning. But how does a football team winning hinder learning?

There are more benefits to having a successful sports team. Alumni giving goes up 7% when their alma mater wins the division, and up 8% if that win occurred their senior year of college. Corporate and large gifts can be affected as well. Nike founder Phil Knight has historically been incredibly generous to his alma mater, the University of Oregon…until Oregon had a losing track season. Then Knight gave $100 million to Stanford, his other alma mater. The message wasn’t lost on the Oregon staff – it pays to win.

The Oklahoma Sooners football team is a profitable business, and if you want to make a profit, it is worth investing in a great coach. But should athletics be used to make a profit? Even if an institution can make money on sports, should they? If John Hopkins learned that they could make millions by having medical students perform routine surgery, bill the insurance company, pay a scholarship, and pocket the rest – should they? If the University of Nevada Las Vegas figured out they could pay off their debt by opening a casino, should they?

Student athletes suffer from mental health issues and are among the least willing to seek help. They have a high risk of anxiety and eating disorders, and have a greater risk of sustaining a life-changing injury. In return we give most of them the chance to do something they love, and a very select few the opportunity to go pro. Are we willing to give this opportunity and risk to students in the hope of making money for our institutions?

I suggest that paying coaches big bucks is worth the cost. However, the revenue they generate should be directly allocated back to students, not just to the athletic program or to a locked endowment fund. Athletic directors should work with corporate sponsors and the media to ensure that the indirect benefits of athletic programs directly benefit students. Bob Stoops can do what he likes with the $35 million made from ticket sales, but the $51 million TV contract and 8% increase in alumni giving ought to go back to students. This doesn’t have to increase faculty salaries, but it could be used to address student mental health, international education, or any number of growing opportunities.

College sports instills pride and a sense of camaraderie among students. Sports connect alumni to their alma mater and promote giving. To do this well, institutions have to invest in a great coaching staff. As the staff is successful, and brings in dollars for the university, those funds should ultimately serve the primary function of the university – student learning.