Debt-laden UCLA was on a grim trajectory to cut sports until it moved to the Big Ten
Ben Bolch, Los Angeles Times
LOS ANGELES — It was a splashy move with a quiet beneficiary.
Given its perilous athletic department finances, UCLA faced the prospect of cutting sports had the school not agreed to bolt for the Big Ten Conference.
The timing isn’t certain and the number of teams that would have been affected isn’t known, but the Bruins were headed toward an Olympic sports Armageddon without the infusion of cash that will accompany its departure from the Pac-12 Conference in 2024.
Now its 25 teams and more than 700 athletes can exhale knowing that their futures have been secured, making those cross-country flights and frigid midwinter temperatures in Big Ten country far more bearable.
“If you love Olympic sports, you should be a fan of this move,” UCLA athletic director Martin Jarmond told The Times on Tuesday. “When your program is in significant debt, it’s difficult just to maintain, never mind to invest. This not only preserves the programs now — which was not a given — but also will allow us to invest in them. This move allows us to reimagine what UCLA athletics can be with more strategic investment and resources.”
Over the last three fiscal years, UCLA’s athletic department had run up a $102.8 million deficit that figured only to worsen given the school’s sagging football attendance and paltry Pac-12 payouts that lagged behind its major conference counterparts. Now it’s conceivable that the Bruins could receive $100 million from the Big Ten per year if the expanded conference can snag the projected $1 billion media rights deal that’s set to begin in 2024.
In the span of one or two years, UCLA’s deficit could become a surplus, its budget worries as much a relic as the Bruins residing in the Pac-12 South.
Those immediate riches should stave off the sort of crisis that Stanford found itself in two years ago, when it announced it was cutting 11 sports because of budgetary constraints. A year later, amid a backlash of lawsuits and athlete angst, the school reversed course and kept its athletic department intact.
Lacking similar salvation, others weren’t as fortunate. More than 30 colleges nationwide have shed sports , citing fiscal hardships created mostly by the COVID-19 pandemic.
UCLA won’t join that list thanks to its new benefactor, eliminating cutback worries. The increased resources will provide, among other things, more money for facilities, travel and coaches’ salaries, even among the four programs — beach volleyball, men’s volleyball, and men’s and women’s water polo — that will not be making the move to the Big Ten because the conference doesn’t sponsor those sports.
“I constantly think about, how do we get No. 120?” Jarmond said, referring to UCLA’s quest for its next NCAA team title. “How do we not only get to the Final Four, but win it all? How do we help the programs win and win big in this changing environment? These days, you have to be constantly increasing your resources to help coaches and student-athletes reach those goals and to stay competitive as a department.
“We want to bring more excitement and energy to our teams. We want more exciting games in the Rose Bowl, more fun in Pauley Pavilion. I think about, how do we help softball not only continue to get to the College World Series but to win it all again? Our student-athletes deserve an elite experience, and this move will play a significant role in our ability to provide that for them.”
Giving them a chance simply to compete may have been the greatest gift of all.
Mark Bradley: NIL money + transfer portal = chaos
Eric Gay
California college athletes would be the first to receive payments related to their athletic performance directly from schools. The NCAA, following what’s been laid out in court decisions, has always fought to keep benefits “tethered to education.”
Well, in SB 1401, much of the compensation still would be related to academics. The bill states a noble goal of improving graduation rates for Black athletes in football and men’s and women’s basketball — the only three sports where players currently don’t receive more than 50% of revenues back purely through their scholarships.
Schools would establish a degree completion fund for each athlete, and the contents of the fund — fed annually — would be made available soon after degree completion (within six years). If the athlete does not graduate within six years, he or she will forfeit the fund and it will go back into the athletic budget. Players would have immediate access to a maximum of $25,000 each year, while the rest would build over time.
Eric Gay
California college athletes would be the first to receive payments related to their athletic performance directly from schools. The NCAA, following what’s been laid out in court decisions, has always fought to keep benefits “tethered to education.”
Well, in SB 1401, much of the compensation still would be related to academics. The bill states a noble goal of improving graduation rates for Black athletes in football and men’s and women’s basketball — the only three sports where players currently don’t receive more than 50% of revenues back purely through their scholarships.
Schools would establish a degree completion fund for each athlete, and the contents of the fund — fed annually — would be made available soon after degree completion (within six years). If the athlete does not graduate within six years, he or she will forfeit the fund and it will go back into the athletic budget. Players would have immediate access to a maximum of $25,000 each year, while the rest would build over time.
The amount owed to each athlete would be the half of the sport’s total revenue minus the team’s total student grant-in-aid package divided by the number of players. For instance, each USC football player could make upwards of $200,000 a year.
Think about taking $15 million to $20 million that currently has been used to reinvest in football resources and to fund the rest of the athletic department and transferring it to football players, and it’s easy to see why administrators are getting ready for a fight.
On the other side of the coin — and this point will have been argued by Sen. Steven Bradford, the bill’s author, and National College Players Assn. executive director Ramogi Huma — should it really have been college football and basketball players’ sacrifice all these years to subsidize the training of America’s future Olympians?
There’s a compelling argument that the amateur model — particularly in the last two decades as television revenues have exploded — has led to a displacement of what could have been generational wealth for young Black athletes and their families.
Aaron M. Sprecher
The amount owed to each athlete would be the half of the sport’s total revenue minus the team’s total student grant-in-aid package divided by the number of players. For instance, each USC football player could make upwards of $200,000 a year.
Think about taking $15 million to $20 million that currently has been used to reinvest in football resources and to fund the rest of the athletic department and transferring it to football players, and it’s easy to see why administrators are getting ready for a fight.
On the other side of the coin — and this point will have been argued by Sen. Steven Bradford, the bill’s author, and National College Players Assn. executive director Ramogi Huma — should it really have been college football and basketball players’ sacrifice all these years to subsidize the training of America’s future Olympians?
There’s a compelling argument that the amateur model — particularly in the last two decades as television revenues have exploded — has led to a displacement of what could have been generational wealth for young Black athletes and their families.
The bill establishes a “pay for play” model but stops at designating athletes as employees, stating, “This does not establish evidence of an employment relationship between a student athlete and their institution of higher education.”
Among administrators, this is viewed as clever wording meant to make the bill easier to pass and harder to lobby against. The assumption is that once “pay for play” begins, employment and collective bargaining will quickly follow.
The bill establishes a “pay for play” model but stops at designating athletes as employees, stating, “This does not establish evidence of an employment relationship between a student athlete and their institution of higher education.”
Among administrators, this is viewed as clever wording meant to make the bill easier to pass and harder to lobby against. The assumption is that once “pay for play” begins, employment and collective bargaining will quickly follow.
That is hard to know. It has a long way to go, needing to make it through the Senate and then through a bunch of committees in the Assembly and then the Assembly floor before moving onto the governor’s desk.
The bill has already been amended. The original asked for Title IX protections and mechanisms in place to curb the cutting of non-revenue sports, but those parts have been removed to fully focus on revenue sharing.
Given the massive implications for athletic department budgets as it’s currently written, there has already been discussion about amending the payment structure to give schools the option of distributing only new revenues (increases year over year) to the players.
In that case, say USC football made $10 million more in 2022 than it did in 2021. Then all of the gain would go to feeding the players’ degree completion funds — $117,650 each — but the department would be able to continue to use the same amount from 2021 to fund the rest of its sports and avoid the doomsday scenario.
One thing to factor in is that the Pac-12 will be renegotiating its media rights contracts for 2024, which should bring in significantly more revenue from the conference.
If SB 1401 becomes law, much of that windfall could go to the athletes and quickly make them whole, so to speak, in working toward the bill’s requirement of a 50/50 split.
It seems likely that if the bill passes, it will have something like this new revenues option in place, because it would give the schools a chance to maintain their current level of operations.
Jae C. Hong
That is hard to know. It has a long way to go, needing to make it through the Senate and then through a bunch of committees in the Assembly and then the Assembly floor before moving onto the governor’s desk.
The bill has already been amended. The original asked for Title IX protections and mechanisms in place to curb the cutting of non-revenue sports, but those parts have been removed to fully focus on revenue sharing.
Given the massive implications for athletic department budgets as it’s currently written, there has already been discussion about amending the payment structure to give schools the option of distributing only new revenues (increases year over year) to the players.
In that case, say USC football made $10 million more in 2022 than it did in 2021. Then all of the gain would go to feeding the players’ degree completion funds — $117,650 each — but the department would be able to continue to use the same amount from 2021 to fund the rest of its sports and avoid the doomsday scenario.
One thing to factor in is that the Pac-12 will be renegotiating its media rights contracts for 2024, which should bring in significantly more revenue from the conference.
If SB 1401 becomes law, much of that windfall could go to the athletes and quickly make them whole, so to speak, in working toward the bill’s requirement of a 50/50 split.
It seems likely that if the bill passes, it will have something like this new revenues option in place, because it would give the schools a chance to maintain their current level of operations.
In the era of the one-time transfer waiver, this is a key component of the bill — especially one tied to degree completion.
The wording states that if an athlete transfers to another California institution, the degree completion fund will transfer after enrollment and be managed and funded by the new school.
If an athlete transfers to an institution out of state, the degree completion fund is forfeited.
Greg Beacham
In the era of the one-time transfer waiver, this is a key component of the bill — especially one tied to degree completion.
The wording states that if an athlete transfers to another California institution, the degree completion fund will transfer after enrollment and be managed and funded by the new school.
If an athlete transfers to an institution out of state, the degree completion fund is forfeited.
Huma, the former UCLA linebacker who has become one of the leaders of the college athlete rights movement nationally, is confident that the answer is no.
When the NCAA made threats against California with SB 206, the Department of Justice antitrust division established an NCAA boycott of California schools would be a violation of antitrust laws.
Power Five conference leaders already talking publicly about possibly leaving behind NCAA governance certainly wouldn’t help the association’s cause if it were to threaten California.
Brynn Anderson
Huma, the former UCLA linebacker who has become one of the leaders of the college athlete rights movement nationally, is confident that the answer is no.
When the NCAA made threats against California with SB 206, the Department of Justice antitrust division established an NCAA boycott of California schools would be a violation of antitrust laws.
Power Five conference leaders already talking publicly about possibly leaving behind NCAA governance certainly wouldn’t help the association’s cause if it were to threaten California.
Debt-laden UCLA was on a grim trajectory to cut sports until it moved to the Big Ten
Stephen Dunn/Getty Images North America/TNS
UCLA head coach John Savage holds up the championship trophy after defeating Mississippi State during the College World Series on June 25, 2013, at TD Ameritrade Park in Omaha, Nebraska. (Stephen Dunn/Getty Images/TNS)
Stephen Dunn/Getty Images North America/TNS
UCLA head coach John Savage holds up the championship trophy after defeating Mississippi State during the College World Series on June 25, 2013, at TD Ameritrade Park in Omaha, Nebraska. (Stephen Dunn/Getty Images/TNS)
