What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Salary Disparity

H

Hockeybuckeye

Well-known member
During a conversation with certain nameless people last weekend the subject came up of the salary disparity between the coaches of men's college hockey programs and women's programs.
Looking online at various top programs there seems to be a definite pattern that coaches of women's programs make significantly less than coaches of men's programs and gender does not seem to come into play.
So is this a problem and if so, how big a one?
 
Yes, it's a problem. And before anyone says that men's hockey programs generate revenue and women's programs don't, that doesn't matter. The legal position of the NCAA and its member schools, as stated in sworn testimony in courts, is that revenue generation plays no role in how they administer their athletic programs. They took this stance as, without it, courts would almost certainly have ruled that scholarship athletes were employees of the university, with all of the protections that come with that designation. Sure, that argument is utterly ridiculous on its face. The representatives of the NCAA as well as numerous individual schools perjured themselves in many court cases. But the courts accepted those arguments. For the NCAA to argue otherwise in any other context puts the designation of the athletes as people engaged in extracurricular activities rather than employees in jeopardy.

So, yes, it's discriminatory that women are coached by individuals who are paid less than those who coach men. The circle of those who will take the job of coaching women is necessarily smaller than it would be if they were paid the same salaries as men's coaches (although it is wider than it would otherwise be since athletic departments refuse to consider women for those higher paid positions coaching men, which is another instance of discrimination).

How big a problem is it? That depends upon exactly how you view the problem. From a strictly ethical perspective, it's a huge problem. Despite their claims of being bastions of equity and inclusion, this is one of many ways in which American universities fall far short of their own administrators' self-images. (The ever increasing numbers of adjunct professors, with few job protections or security is another.) To what extent it diminishes the experience of the women athletes is hard to impossible to tell.
 
Still Eeyore said:
Yes, it's a problem.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is a problem both from a fairness aspect and with regard to social justice. Although I am only stating these two, that does not mean that I think those are the only areas where the disparity is problematic.

Why does this problem exist? Primarily, I think it is because the coaching profession seems to be market-driven when it comes to compensation. In the case of public institutions, instead of classifying someone as "Head Coach" or "Associate Head Coach" or "Assistant Coach" and then placing them within an appropriate range based on experience or even achievements, there is competition at the top end of the coaching pyramid such that money is no object and the only thing that matters is winning and bringing prestige to the institution. The higher the profile of the sport, the more prestige that winning will supposedly bring. I don't know enough about how college professors are compensated to write about whether the same bidding wars exist in academia, but I would guess that it does, but that the scale isn't quite as warped as it is in sports.

Why do some sports have a higher profile? To some degree, the more thriving the professional leagues are for the sport, then the more popular the college sport is. This isn't entirely true, of course, when we look at sports like soccer and baseball.

There is obviously a huge gender bias here. It is part of the reason why there are only "17" of us here. Strangely, I also think that some of us are here instead of on the men's board because we're independent (or stubborn) and at some point we chose to not blindly follow the conventional thinking that men's sports must be more important than women's sports by definition.

If society endures long enough, then this thinking will eventually evolve. Sadly, I doubt it will reach the point that we'd like any time soon. If you've been borne out of systems where ruling husbands would decide to have their wives executed when they failed to give birth to a male heir, then Y chromosomes become drastically overvalued.
 
The sentiment expressed does not unfortunately reflect how college coaches and programs are funded. Nearly all big money coaches salaries are from donations. Mr. Rich Pants likes to brag to his 'friends' at the country club that his school can beat their school. He has a few million burning a hole in his pocket and instead of doing something worthwhile, he gives it to his school saying it must be used to support the sport he likes. After all, amateur student-athletes need to have their coaches the highest paid employee with facilities that most pro sports can't afford. A lot of times it is used to 'buy out' the contract of the coach he does not like. No discrimination by the schools or NCAA or anyone. Mr. Rich Pants can stipulate how his donation is to be used. Colleges are greedy corrupt institutions who will take any money from any source no matter how unfair its stipulations are.

If you think Katey Stone and her staff at Harvard should be paid the same as Ted Donato, direct your ire to either "The Landry Family" for not being as generous as "Robert D. Ziff '88", or to ask "Robert D. Ziff '88" why he did not kick in an equal amount to the women's side. Same at Yale. If Mark Bolding and staff are not paid the same as Keith Allain, call out either "Susan Cavanagh" for being stingy or "Malcolm G. Chace" for being a sexist. At RPI, "C. Lloyd Bauer ’55" endowed Dave Smith's salary while Bryan Vines is just "Head Coach". I guess no alumni care at RPI about the women's program to kick in some funding. Public schools do the same thing as these elite private schools even if they don't have some braggart's name in front of the coach's title.

Women's programs are nearly fully funded unfortunately through the general athletic revenues (mostly brought in by football and basketball, or the dreaded "student athletic fee" most schools have to add to all the student bills just to keep programs afloat.) since Mr. Rich Pants does not getting bragging rights at the club when the women's hockey team beats their 'friend's' team. Things are going to get worse for the women, especially at Power 5 schools, when that revenue that goes to women and non-revenue sports goes directly to the football and basketball players. It is the sad world we are in that these 'amateur' student-athletes will soon be collecting paychecks from funds that have supported the women's programs.

But there is hope! If anyone strikes it rich here, please don't forget about the women's athletic programs at all the schools! Or better yet, fund something that makes a real impact and let the women be students first athletes second and not repeat what has happened on the men's side.
 
Cornholio said:
Women's programs are nearly fully funded unfortunately through the general athletic revenues (mostly brought in by football and basketball, or the dreaded "student athletic fee
Click to expand...
I can see that some colleges & conferences may be somewhat anemic in what those programs bring in for the revenue sharing but for the WCHA teams that belong to Big Ten with the Big Ten's massive money intake and revenue sharing I can't believe they wouldn't have the means for salary equity in all their sports with the exception of football & basketball.
 
I didn't look up the numbers for all the coaches in the WCHA, but here are the salaries for Ohio State's Hockey Coaches, and there is definitely a disparity.

Nadine Muzerall $260,000.00
Steve Rohlik $496,420.31

I hesitated to put this information out here, but for public institutions like Ohio State, this information is readily available for anyone to see. I would be curious as to how Nadine's salary stacks up against the other coaches in our league, like Mark Johnson at Wisconsin or Brad Frost at Minnesota.
 
osualum86 said:
I hesitated to put this information out here, but for public institutions like Ohio State, this information is readily
Click to expand...

Out of 30 head coaches at Ohio State Coach Muzerall is the 10th highest paid but the list I saw did not include bonus or incentive clauses.
 
osualum86 said:
I didn't look up the numbers for all the coaches in the WCHA, but here are the salaries for Ohio State's Hockey Coaches, and there is definitely a disparity.

Nadine Muzerall $260,000.00
Steve Rohlik $496,420.31

I hesitated to put this information out here, but for public institutions like Ohio State, this information is readily available for anyone to see. I would be curious as to how Nadine's salary stacks up against the other coaches in our league, like Mark Johnson at Wisconsin or Brad Frost at Minnesota.
Click to expand...

In 2020 MJ was at $445,725 and Granato was at $617,010. In MJ's case, he was heavily courted to be the head coach of the PSU men's team when they started the program, I think a lot of his salary is based on WI trying to get his compensation in the ballpark of what the head coach at PSU would make.
in 2020 Frosty was at $195,000 and Motzko $655,000. Looks like Frosty needs a new agent, though these numbers are 3 years old.

I had no idea out east donors are essentially paying coaches at some schools. I pretty sure at WI there are bonuses and freebees like vehicles that are privately funded.

Equal work should mean equal pay at the inter-school level.
 
According to Clarkson's 2019 form 990 tax statement

Cassey Jones makes $28K more than Matt Desrosiers in salary and an estimated $9K more from other organizations.

Jones salary is covered by the endowed Leonard S. Ceglarski Chair at Clarkson. Not sure if any such endowment exists for Desrosiers salary.
 
Timothy A said:
In 2020 MJ was at $445,725 and Granato was at $617,010. In MJ's case, he was heavily courted to be the head coach of the PSU men's team when they started the program, I think a lot of his salary is based on WI trying to get his compensation in the ballpark of what the head coach at PSU would make.
in 2020 Frosty was at $195,000 and Motzko $655,000. Looks like Frosty needs a new agent, though these numbers are 3 years old.

I had no idea out east donors are essentially paying coaches at some schools. I pretty sure at WI there are bonuses and freebees like vehicles that are privately funded.

Equal work should mean equal pay at the inter-school level.
Click to expand...

Frost got a new contract last year so maybe he is near/above Muzerall now. The UMD coach got a large contract before that that may have reset the market a bit, good for her.

Not sure if it was said elsewhere but I see Darwitz was promoted to associate head coach which is a pretty obvious thing that should happen.

They should all be fighting for equity in the ways that they can. Of course it matters.

I know private money funds a lot of stuff, but let’s be real when the private money isn’t there, the powers that be find public money to pay for the projects they value. And if the private money isn’t there it’s often due to other systemic issues - the best graduates on the women’s side of OSU aren’t making millions, they can’t fund a new rink, sorry. Going to have to figure out a different way,

I think Muzerall is fascinating - the combo of being a winning coach, sort of wears her heart on her sleeve, well spoken, at a high profile school, is somehow doing this with little kids but doesn’t pretend she is supermom. her career will be fascinating to watch. I think she can have a tremendous impact off ice, just by doing what she is doing. And that should be valued. I say that with the usual caveat that coaches are in positions of power and should be held in check every step of the way.
 
I couldn't find Frost's salary under his new contract yet but I did see his net worth is in the millions due to his outside business ventures.
With his time and success at Minnesota you would think that there wouldn't be any reason why he shouldn't be the highest paid of them all.
 
Last edited:
Hockeybuckeye said:
I couldn't find Frost's salary under his new contract yet but I did see his net worth is in the millions due to his outside business ventures.
With his time and success at Minnesota you would think that there wouldn't be any reason why he shouldn't be the highest paid of them all.
Click to expand...
Mark Johnson has been at it longer, and thus, won more, so it would follow that he would have a larger salary. How much larger could be up for debate.
 
Lindsay said:
Frost got a new contract last year so maybe he is near/above Muzerall now. The UMD coach got a large contract before that that may have reset the market a bit, good for her.

Not sure if it was said elsewhere but I see Darwitz was promoted to associate head coach which is a pretty obvious thing that should happen.

They should all be fighting for equity in the ways that they can. Of course it matters.

I know private money funds a lot of stuff, but let’s be real when the private money isn’t there, the powers that be find public money to pay for the projects they value. And if the private money isn’t there it’s often due to other systemic issues - the best graduates on the women’s side of OSU aren’t making millions, they can’t fund a new rink, sorry. Going to have to figure out a different way,

I think Muzerall is fascinating - the combo of being a winning coach, sort of wears her heart on her sleeve, well spoken, at a high profile school, is somehow doing this with little kids but doesn’t pretend she is supermom. her career will be fascinating to watch. I think she can have a tremendous impact off ice, just by doing what she is doing. And that should be valued. I say that with the usual caveat that coaches are in positions of power and should be held in check every step of the way.
Click to expand...

Lindsay, you may have seen this already, but this is a great piece on Coach Muzerall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw026GeuOKc
 
osualum86 said:
Lindsay, you may have seen this already, but this is a great piece on Coach Muzerall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw026GeuOKc
Click to expand...

Yes, a very nice snapshot of Nadine Muzerall. I have said it here before, that when she was on the Gopher bench, and it came to crunch time on the ice, she was the person talking the team through the critical moments. This is not to disparage Brad Frost. When your assistant moves on the win the national championship, you should have some sense of accomplishment for allowing that person to develop with you. If Joel Johnson can accomplish something similar with St. Thomas, then Brad may need to start teaching coaching rather than doing coaching.
 
Steamboat said:
If Joel Johnson can accomplish something similar with St. Thomas, then Brad may need to start teaching coaching rather than doing coaching.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't take Johnson's accomplishments as proof of Frost's ability to mentor, given they were college teammates and Joel was on the UM staff winning a national championship before Frost was hired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top