But you can foot the bill while they live the good life. It's nice to be a part of something, isn't it? But people are getting nervous in candyland colleges across the nation: Nick Saban's contract with Alabama might have been the $32 million straw that broke the camel's back of not-for-profit collegiate sports:
Nick Saban's $4 million-a-year contract to become Alabama's football coach is good news for other top coaches negotiating new contracts. But some college athletics administrators fear that Saban's windfall will trigger others, and that continuing increases in coaches' salaries may result in congressional scrutiny.Saban will become the highest-paid coach in college football by a wide margin, according to a USA TODAY study of head coaches' contracts.
This year's leader was Oklahoma's Bob Stoops, at $3.45 million, not including benefits or the value of other perks. Iowa's Kirk Ferentz will clear the $3 million threshold in 2007. Both coaches in Monday night's Bowl Championship Series title game have contract provisions that could soon result in renegotiations. Florida's Urban Meyer already is making more than $1.5 million and Ohio State's Jim Tressel more than $2 million.
"I'm concerned … about the finances and how it will affect the rest of us in the years to come," said LSU athletics director Skip Bertman. "Congress is already talking about 'What can we do?' And presidents are saying 'What can we do?' This will not just fuel the fire. This will set off all the alarms."
USA TODAY obtained a contract or other official documentation for 107 of 119 Division I-A coaches, and Stoops was alone above $3 million in guaranteed pay this year. (Notre Dame's Charlie Weis, likely a high earner, was among those for whom USA TODAY could not obtain figures.)
The House Ways and Means Committee has asked the NCAA to explain — among other things — why coaches are paid so much and whether athletic departments with up to $105 million in revenue deserve tax-exempt status.
At least some schools are watching developments warily.
In a carefully worded statement, Notre Dame athletics director Kevin White said he finds himself "continually concerned about protecting the non-profit status enjoyed by intercollegiate athletics and/or the academy in general."
Here in Florida the football coaches have their heads stuffed in the tax-free feedbag as well. On top of his regular salary, UF's Urbin Meyer's 20-page contract rains down lots of sugar cubes:
Colleges have invented all kinds of imaginative ways to stuff extra money into coaches' pockets. Bobby, for example, is promised $300,000 for speechifying. Urban gets $300,000 to host a TV show that no one would mistake for American Idol.Meyer gets a $60,000 expense account. He gets two free cars and the university throws in his car insurance. He gets $500,000 in a sports apparel deal. (Poor Coach Bowden only gets $275,000 a year from Nike.) Meyer gets $100,000 a year for his investment portfolio (which increases to $150,000 after 2008). And another $100,000 toward his children's education. He gets 12 ''highest stadium priority'' tickets to every home game -- a commodity valuable enough to make a scalper rich.
When Meyer signed the contract in 2005, he received a $500,000 signing bonus. On top of all that lovely money, Meyer gets another $250,000 this year just for not running out on his contract. Next year the ''longevity'' bonus goes up to $500,000. By 2011, if Meyer is still hanging around Gatorland, the annual please-don't-go bonus goes up to $600,000.
Some folks, particularly those making less than the average $950,000 a year now made by a Division 1 college football coach, complain that these salaries make a mockery of college's tax-exempt academic mission.
Make sure you check out the database of college coaches' salaries and their sweet, sweet incentives. That it all falls under tax-exempt academic mission status might get you rooting for a congressional inquiry.
Posted by floridacracker at January 14, 2007 01:26 PMI hate to break out the States Rights argument (actually, I don't ;-) but why on earth would Congress get involved in this issue? The governors and State legislators, sure. They're State universities. And no government should be involved in what private schools pay their coaches.
I also never understood why Congress was involved in the baseball/steroid issue. Both issues smack of makework to me. If they would mind their own business and stick to their constitutional duties we could cut their salaries by two thirds and only let them meet a few months out of the year. Or set it up like Texas - the legislature only meets for 140 days and only in odd numbered years. I'd like to see the US Congress do that. Less chance for them to stick their hands in our pockets.
Posted by: hamous at January 14, 2007 02:52 PMhamous - I agree with you in principle but this last Congress only "worked" about 2 1/2 days a week and that was when they weren't on recess. I'm not sure about football coaches but I'd like to see a "pay-for-play" arrangement for our legislators. But then there would be those that took the "play" part the wrong way. So I guess I'm back to term limits and just wishing that college football coaches were paid like other university employees.
Posted by: tfhr at January 14, 2007 05:11 PM as I understand it, Urban Meyer donates all of his perks back to the University of Florida, including the tickets..he auctions those on Ebay, and the proceeds are given to U of F, how's that for
a class act ?
He sold both of the cars and did the same thing.
Posted by: csason at January 14, 2007 05:20 PMhamous,
As I understand it. They (Congress) are looking at the tax exempt part that the universities fall under. Uncle Sam wants some of those big bucks and I can't say that I blame him. To a point anyway, and I believe that Major College Football Inc. has reached that point. Also, MLB has their own tax loophole (can't remember it's name now) that no other professional league enjoys. So Congress can stick their nose into steriod use too, in my humble opinion.
That being said, Congress should get back to things, like raising the minimun wage and taxes on regular folks like us, that it does best. And discussing Condi's barren uterus. Or maybe not on second thought.
Or they could always try- to unite and win the War on IslamicTerror- and maybe cut spending and seal the borders. But that's just a dream.
BTW hamous, I just dumped a lot of sarc and snark and ranting.... but none of it was aimed at you. You had a very valid comment. I just went on a rant. Sorry.
Also: I didn't know that Coach Meyer gave his incredible perks back to the university.
That's classy. Even if it just helps him on his taxes, it helps the university too. A lot of other programs can be funded with that money. It's a win win type situation in this case, but in others- not so much.
MLB has their own tax loophole (can't remember it's name now) that no other professional league enjoys
I am not sure if it is a tax loophole, but major league baseball has a Sherman anti-trust exemption - no other professional league has it. The primary thing the exemption does is prevent a team from moving at-will, without the approval of the other owners.
As far as collegfe athletics being exempt from federal taxation, it may have served a purpose decades ago, but not in an era where the NCAA is earning billions off the backs of athletes.
Posted by: Mark at January 15, 2007 12:32 PMthe tax free status of University's is the same as my daughter's private school..in effect.
Now...if their school happens to make a lot of money off of the fantastic programs it has (the fine arts department makes a small fortune around Valentines Day) and it is able to fund more programs..should the state step in and sweep all the juice off ?
Hell NO !
The fact that the colleges can pay that kind of money says the government should stick to what they do best...build community colleges...then tax them.
Besides, if we are gonna nail the people that have saved and scrimped for the kid to get an education..then let's start with William and Mary, then to UofV@Charlottesville, and work our way down....Harvard, Yale...those guys first.
We can get to the little schools later..SC, Ohio..the U.
Posted by: csason at January 15, 2007 12:53 PMTheir salary should depend on what it does for the university. Here at Ohio State, our football team pays for all those girls' teams and minor sports that run in the hole. It is a self supporting program, doesn't cost us tax payers money, and keeps the alumni happy (unless they lose to Florida). And we're a great farm club for professional sports. It's a business. Pay them what it takes to keep them.
Posted by: Norma at January 15, 2007 04:55 PMSchools aren't in the business of being farm teams for professional sports and by paying no taxes it does cost the taxpayers money.
If it's a business, then it needs to get taxed like a business, doesn't it?
They are farm teams though. Considering the salaries one of those boys will make as a pro to not compensate their coach adequately would be hard to take.
Like being a teacher, you lay the foundation, the primary knowledge and skills, for the future CEOs, or drywall hangers, what ever, and what do you get? But that's beside the point.
Over X amount of $ tax exemption should be reconsidered. Churches (of all faiths) have abused the systen too.
most of these kids don't make the big time. They wind up as car salesmen...or anthropologists.
Like every job I know of, there are some who *really* know their stuff, and some who just make the standard salary.
The coaches who command this kind of money are good.
So, are you saying we should cap the coaches salaries? They would just go pro. Are you saying that colleges shouldn't share in the profits that FOX and the networks make off the advertising ?
They shouldn't get free commercial time to promote their school ? That inflation shouldn't affect the educational system?
That construction prices, the price of bologna and books should all be reverted back to '60's prices so that the school doesn't look 'profit'.
You got guys like Tom Crusie making quad zillions for being cute, and being able to shoot blanks out of a prop...but we can't have a college coach making more than say 100k a year or he's a slime.
Posted by: csason at January 16, 2007 05:59 AMGood points made by all- In the post and comments. This is a debate that will rage almost as long as the college playoff debate.
Posted by: AmeriDan at January 16, 2007 12:02 PMYes, it's an interesting (and heated) conversation. My view: if the college coaches were soooooooooooo good, they'd be in the pros. Too bad the pros ship you right on out of there if you don't perform. Then it's back to coaching college, isn't it? ;)
Posted by: Donnah at January 16, 2007 05:49 PM