Value of Players
Value of Players
I posted this over on the men's forum in response to the below post on my thread there, but it really belongs in the women's forum so I'm also posting it here. My NCAA financials should be updated for 2017 & 2018 soon.
Yes, that year was an anomaly, but it was also used by an economics professor to talk about how horribly UW exploited Hilary Knight
LINK
Thanks for the link, it was an interesting article. However, I really expect better from a professor of economics. My first issue is that he apparently didn’t bother to actually look at all the information available in the EADA reports. Limited as they are he should have noticed that for 22 schools the revenue for women’s hockey equaled the expenses, for 9 schools expenses exceed revenue (8 by more than $300,000), and for just 6 schools revenue exceed expenses (one by just a dollar, so really it can be counted with the 22 schools that balanced the books). Furthermore, looking at EADA reported revenue for all the schools together shows that Minnesota reported just $389,769 for 2016(-17), less than every school except Ohio State. That one of the most successful programs generated less revenue than 34 other programs, including Sacred Heart and Holy Cross, is cause for taking a closer look and doing further research. If he had done so he should have noticed that on the EADA reports team revenues usually equal team expenses for the non-revenue sports.
The Chronicle of Higher Education’s article on college sports clearly considered student fees, direct local, state and federal government support, and direct and indirect institutional support all forms of subsidies to athletic departments. I have followed that in my earned revenue and earned profit/loss columns, in which those revenue categories are subtracted from the reported overall revenues for each school to determine the true earned revenues for each team each year. Using this a baseline results in a very different numbers.
And while understandable, he used the wrong year of data for the value of the players as seniors. The EADA custom reports use when the school year starts (i.e., for the 2011-12 school year the EADA custom reports are all identified as 2011). That means that the revenue number he used to calculate what each player mentioned should have received was for the year after they graduated, except those that graduated in 2017 (which he accidentally got correct).
He also decided that every player on the U.S. national team was the best player on her NCAA team her senior year. So he has 3 BC players all the best for 2017 and 2 the best for 2015, 3 Minnesota players the best for 2017 and 2 the best for 2016, while North Dakota has 2 the best for 2013. Usually only one can be the best on her team in a given year and if all were truly equal then they should be using a lower multiplier. Furthermore, he equates the highest paid NHL player with the best NHL player, which is certainly open to debate. I also disagree with his valuation of each player as the best on her school team based on her being on her country’s Olympic team.
While I believe that his valuation method is flawed, I will use it so I can do a direct comparison using the revenue numbers reported to the NCAA. Of the 23 players identified in the article, 16 played for public schools for which the actual NCAA financial reports are available. These reports clearly show that the EADA reported revenue is usually equal to the total expenses for each team and that the actual reported revenue was either much lower or include the previously mentioned subsidies. I have created a
spreadsheet that shows all 23 players, the worth Professor Berri placed on them, their correct EADA worth and for those that played for public schools, their NCAA revenue and earned revenue worth. I have also included the average and maximum value of each public schools scholarships and average meals allowance, plus the variance between their EADA worth, NCAA revenue and earned revenue worth and what they likely received in scholarships and meal allowances. For the 7 that played for private schools I have estimated what they likely received in scholarships.
I also have two lines for both Hillary Knight and Brianna Decker since for their senior seasons Wisconsin reported extremely large contribution amounts to women’s hockey. A close look at their expenses seems to indicate that most of these contributions were used to pay down the debt on LeBahn Arena and should probably not be included as part of their earned revenue amount for either season. Therefore, I have only counted $144,000 in contributions for each year (the average for the other 7 years for which I have data) for those two years to reflect that. If you include the total contributions then you can claim that both were horribly exploited by Wisconsin, but if you exclude them then both players ended up receiving slightly more in scholarships than they were worth.
In the article Professor Berri states that for 2015-16 (actually 2016-17) if the 36 (actually 37; it appears he missed Merrimack) schools gave 50% of their revenue to the players that would have been $21.7 million divided among 845 players, for an average of $25,682. Including Merrimack the amount would have been $22.5 million divided among 870 players, for an average of $25,853. When using the NCAA revenue numbers for the 13 public schools and the EADA revenue numbers for the 24 private schools 50% of reported revenue would have been $20.46 million divided among 870 players, for an average of $23,518. Yet using the actual scholarships and meal allowance amounts for the 13 public schools and the estimated scholarship amounts for the 24 private schools the players received about $22.845 million divided among 870 players, for an average of $26,259. However the earned revenue of the 13 public schools was just $3.2 million, 50% of which was just $ 1.6 million divided among the 312 players for an average of $5,106. That is far less than the $9.2 million the schools gave out to 312 players in scholarships and meal allowances, an average of $29,509.
However, the article really focused on the top players, not the bottom players. Taking a look at the specific examples it gives, I'll start with Jocelyne Lamoureux-Davidson. The article states that she would have been paid $112,961 by North Dakota in 2013. However, using the NCAA report and not the EADA shows a startling difference. North Dakota reported to the NCAA that its women's hockey team generated $99,931 in revenue in 2013. The players would receive 50% of that revenue if the school followed the NHL model. So the players would have received $49,965.5 in revenue. The NCAA reported there were 26 participants on the team. So each member would — on average — be paid $1,921.75. As the best player, though, Lamoureux-Davidson would be paid 4.87 times that amount. That works out to $9,365, or about half the cost of attending North Dakota for one year (UND’s 2013 NCAA report shows the school gave out $395,327 in aid for 20.55 scholarship equivalencies, an average of $19,237 per full scholarship). If the amount was split equally among all 26 players it would be an average of $15,205, but it was actually only split among 23 players, an average of $17,188. However, it is likely Lamoureux-Davidson received the full scholarship amount of $19,237. In sum, Lamoureux-Davidson was not exploited by North Dakota in 2013. BTW, Profesor Berri doesn’t bring up why, if women’s hockey is so profitable, North Dakota dropped the sport to save money.
If we follow those same steps for each member of Team USA, here is what each player would have been paid had her school followed the NHL approach in her last year in school:
Hilary Knight – excluding LeBahn contribution (Wisconsin, 2012): $35,136
Meghan Duggan (Wisconsin, 2011): $26,932
Kendall Coyne (Northeastern, 2016): $?
Megan Keller (Boston College, 2017): $?
Cayla Barnes (Boston College, 2017): $?
Kali Flanagan (Boston College, 2017): $?
Alex Carpenter (Boston College, 2015): $?
Emily Pfalzer (Boston College, 2015): $?
Maddie Rooney (Minnesota-Duluth, 2017): $29,393
Amanda Pelkey (Vermont, 2015): $3,677
Monique Lamoureux-Morando (North Dakota: 2013): $9,365
Nicole Hensley (Lindenwood, 2017): $?
Alex Rigsby (Wisconsin, 2014): $43,502
Brianna Decker – excluding LeBahn contribution (Wisconsin, 2013): $31,297
Megan Bozek (Minnesota, 2013): $68,583
Kacey Bellamy (New Hampshire, 2009): $19,099
Gigi Marvin (Minnesota, 2009): $16,100
Amanda Kessel (Minnesota, 2016): $34,171
Hannah Brandt (Minnesota, 2016): $34,171
Dani Cameranesi (Minnesota, 2017): $36,528
Lee Stecklein (Minnesota, 2017): $36,528
Kelly Pannek (Minnesota, 2017): $36,528
The average pay to these women who played for public schools — if their schools followed the NHL model — would be $29,398. The average scholarship and meal allowance these women did receive was $31,937 and the minimum average scholarship and meal allowance these women received when the estimated scholarship values for the 7 private schools is factored in was $39,553.
All of this tells us that a free market, or a market where schools were free to pay their athletes whatever they like, wouldn't just result in higher pay for men's basketball players and football players. Either non-revenue sports would be dropped, or the players would be expected to pay for most or all of their education. And that would lead to fewer opportunities for women and men to participate in sports while in college.
Sean
