How worried shouid we be about D1 tennis’ future with latest revenue sharing proposal for football/basketball?

T

TennisFan97

New User
It looks like the SEC and Big 10 (and to a lesser extent the ACC and Big 12) are moving towards a revenue sharing model with their student athletes, obviously geared towards football and basketball players.

This would seemingly be very bad news for non revenue sports and mens tennis in particular is sadly often one of fhe first to go.

It’s been a slow decline over the years of D1 program cuts but this latest development seems like a really bad development. Am I overreacting or is this as bad as it seems?
 
TennisFan97 said:
It looks like the SEC and Big 10 (and to a lesser extent the ACC and Big 12) are moving towards a revenue sharing model with their student athletes, obviously geared towards football and basketball players.

This would seemingly be very bad news for non revenue sports and mens tennis in particular is sadly often one of fhe first to go.

It’s been a slow decline over the years of D1 program cuts but this latest development seems like a really bad development. Am I overreacting or is this as bad as it seems?
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to a article that discusses it?
 
This very issue has been a concern of mine for a few years regarding the survival of all non-revenue sports. Given the ongoing state of finances in the NCAA and DI programs seeming to need more money every few years, I can see some P3 schools keeping mens FB & BB and a few womens sports to meet Title IX requirements and dropping the rest. I can see tennis surviving better at the non-P3 schools who have to be more financially prudent since they often don't get to count on TV and big fan ticket revenues.
 
This stuff is the only thing that a local Clemson sports radio statio I listen to talks about.

Non-revenue men’s sports are most at risk, with tennis possibly being at the very bottom of the totem pole. There just aren’t enough people out there who would bat an eye whatsoever if men’s college tennis was greatly changed or reduced.

Quite frankly I’m just sticking my head in the sand and trying to ignore it for now. Have no control over it and I don’t think there’s anything we can really do about it.
 
bobleenov1963 said:

You can see that 45% of the money in the budget come from gift/endowment. If the people who give money want men tennis/golf programs to stay, those programs will stay. I see the same at schools like UVA, UNC, Michigan, Northwestern, etc... Other schools without sugar daddies may not be lucky :(
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, the cost to run a tennis program is a little ove one million, at the most two million. Just contine to use some of the football money to cover the costs. That doesn't seem like a ton of money.
 
silentkman said:
If I'm not mistaken, the cost to run a tennis program is a little ove one million, at the most two million. Just contine to use some of the football money to cover the costs. That doesn't seem like a ton of money.
Click to expand...
The University and school athletic department only have to answer to essentially two entities:

- The Federal government because it wants to get research federal funding and be compliance with Title IX. The last thing it want is to get into a pissing match with the powerful Federal government because the Fed can take down just about anyone,

-T he university big donors because as mentioned above, almost 50% of the school operating budget relies o gift/endowment. If those donors want the tennis program to go, it will go. If those guys want it to stay, it will stay. Money talks.....
 
bobleenov1963 said:
The University and school athletic department only have to answer to essentially two entities:

- The Federal government because it wants to get research federal funding and be compliance with Title IX. The last thing it want is to get into a pissing match with the powerful Federal government because the Fed can take down just about anyone,

-T he university big donors because as mentioned above, almost 50% of the school operating budget relies o gift/endowment. If those donors want the tennis program to go, it will go. If those guys want it to stay, it will stay. Money talks.....
Click to expand...
You have stated the obvious. My comment was concerning the cost to run a division one program.
 
silentkman said:
If I'm not mistaken, the cost to run a tennis program is a little ove one million, at the most two million. Just contine to use some of the football money to cover the costs. That doesn't seem like a ton of money.
Click to expand...

Yes, tennis does not make revenue of course but it is actually one of the lowest cost sports to have thanks to smaller teams and support staff as well as less equipment than other sports.

There are many sports that lose far more money than tennis.
 
Most women tennis operating revenue expense is higher than men. That's understandable because there are 8 scholarships for women vs. 4.5 for men. Some of the programs like Florida State and Wake, have higher operating revenue for men than women. I am not a title IX lawyer but would that be a red flag for possible of violating Title IX?
 
I think the unintended consequences will be non revenue sports at these P3 schools will get squeezed out. My wild guess is these sports will be okay at non P3 and below
 
I spoke a prominent AD this morning and he has been working on the revenue sharing model for a while, in anticipation of this day. Basically what he told me is that some sports reduced in terms of funding, but he wouldn't cut any as they are almost at the minimum for NCAA D1 requirements (16 sports). What is more worried about is the amount they'll be able to give football players with regard to other schools in conference. In his case, their revenue is in the middle 50% while a rival school is near the top so football players at his school would make 20k less per year than players at this other school as their conference is suggesting using a cap of 22% of revenue at each school.

As for men's tennis, I doubt very many players will get any of the revenue share. Football and men's basketball players will get first priority (and rightfully so). Then will be the women's sports as you have to balance out due to title IX. If you dilute the revenue sharing pool even more by issuing more "shares", then you'll start seeing a negative impact in recruiting
 
optimaltennis said:
I spoke a prominent AD this morning and he has been working on the revenue sharing model for a while, in anticipation of this day. Basically what he told me is that some sports reduced in terms of funding, but he wouldn't cut any as they are almost at the minimum for NCAA D1 requirements (16 sports). What is more worried about is the amount they'll be able to give football players with regard to other schools in conference. In his case, their revenue is in the middle 50% while a rival school is near the top so football players at his school would make 20k less per year than players at this other school as their conference is suggesting using a cap of 22% of revenue at each school.

As for men's tennis, I doubt very many players will get any of the revenue share. Football and men's basketball players will get first priority (and rightfully so). Then will be the women's sports as you have to balance out due to title IX. If you dilute the revenue sharing pool even more by issuing more "shares", then you'll start seeing a negative impact in recruiting
Click to expand...
I wonder if D1 schools incl P3 will lobby NCAA to reduce minimum sports below 16 or have more of a D3 model for men’s nonrevenue sports.
 
optimaltennis said:
I spoke a prominent AD this morning and he has been working on the revenue sharing model for a while, in anticipation of this day. Basically what he told me is that some sports reduced in terms of funding, but he wouldn't cut any as they are almost at the minimum for NCAA D1 requirements (16 sports). What is more worried about is the amount they'll be able to give football players with regard to other schools in conference. In his case, their revenue is in the middle 50% while a rival school is near the top so football players at his school would make 20k less per year than players at this other school as their conference is suggesting using a cap of 22% of revenue at each school.

As for men's tennis, I doubt very many players will get any of the revenue share. Football and men's basketball players will get first priority (and rightfully so). Then will be the women's sports as you have to balance out due to title IX. If you dilute the revenue sharing pool even more by issuing more "shares", then you'll start seeing a negative impact in recruiting
Click to expand...
While it makes sense that an AD would be preparing for this, I can see the P3 schools giving the NCAA the middle finger and breaking away to create their own conference. I'm less than optimistic this goes well.
 
Just when you think it can't get any worse for college tennis. Last month, CBS sport network showed men/women college bowling championship while men/women college tennis championship was nowhere to be found :-D
 
andfor said:
The tennis championships were on ESPN+, many of us watched it.
Click to expand...
Yes that was good visibility on a premier platform although there were camera and scoreboard malfunctions aplenty. I didn’t mind some of it bc I thought Gruskin’s play by play (when camera coverage failed) was pretty good and exciting to listen to.
 
andfor said:
You’re not one for nuance.
Click to expand...
I just simply point out how low college tennis in the totem pole of college sports in that nobody cares about it except a few people here and there. The fact that college bowling was on CBS sport network and one had to pay ESPN+ to watch college tennis said plenty about the state of college tennis. The golf channel spends two weeks each year to cover college women/men golf championship and also a few big golf tournaments during the fall season when PGA/LPGA golf season is over. Just saying...
 
TV coverage while important to any sport is not the only or final indication of overall interst. I can bet anything you’ve been to a college tennis match, but never been to a college bowling or golf match. Using your logic without any data, would mean college tennis is a more popular sport than those other two games.
 
andfor said:
TV coverage while important to any sport is not the only or final indication of overall interst. I can bet anything you’ve been to a college tennis match, but never been to a college bowling or golf match. Using your logic without any data, would mean college tennis is a more popular sport than those other two games.
Click to expand...
It is not, really? That's why the highest NBA player gets paid almost 60M/yr while the highest WNBA player gets paid 250K/yr. Almost all of that money come from broadcasting rights (e.g TV coverage).

I've been to several college golf championship matches and the number of people watching college golf in person is less than the number of people watching tennis championship in Orlando. That being said, the golf channel has college coverage for both the men and women championship, for a week each. TV coverage gives the sport exposure (eyeballs = revenue) but nobody cares about college tennis except a very few in this forum.
 
Golf has had declining participation numbers for years. They’ve had a slight uptick this spring, but courses have closed hand over fist since around 2010. You like to use illogical analogies and compare Apples to Oranges.
 
Last edited:
andfor said:
Golf has had declining participation numbers for years. They’ve had a slight uptick this spring, but courses have closed hand over fist since around 2010. You like to use illogical analogies and compare Apples to Oranges.
Click to expand...
And yet from January until the FedEx cup playoff in September, you will see golf tournament almost every weekend, Saturday and Sunday on either NBC or CBS. You're not going to find tennis on regular TV channel other than the majors. Even then, the US Open was on CBS until it moves to ESPN, less eyeballs. TV broadcast is where the money is. Has it ever occurred to you that golf courses have closed on purpose? Golf people want it to be as much as expensive as possible to keep poor people out. The point here is that even college golf is on TV whereas college tennis is NOT. Even college bowling is on TV :-D
 
bobleenov1963 said:
And yet from January until the FedEx cup playoff in September, you will see golf tournament almost every weekend, Saturday and Sunday on either NBC or CBS. You're not going to find tennis on regular TV channel other than the majors. Even then, the US Open was on CBS until it moves to ESPN, less eyeballs. TV broadcast is where the money is. Has it ever occurred to you that golf courses have closed on purpose? Golf people want it to be as much as expensive as possible to keep poor people out. The point here is that even college golf is on TV whereas college tennis is NOT. Even college bowling is on TV :-D
Click to expand...
Golf had been ahead of tennis for years captain. Golf courses closed due to lack of membership and play, not due to your conspiracy theory. Next thing you'll tell is those courses that closed where paid to do so by elite country clubs.

What would be more insightful as opposed to visual generalizations would be ratings per each broadcast. Not the PGA, Your examples, College Bowling on CBS vs. NCAA tennis championships on ESPN+.

BTW, while TV does produce a lot of revenue for sports leagues and teams, it does not mean they all get paid when they are on TV. Can you also show us what CBS paid college bowling to be broadcast? Doubt it. It may be news to you, but sports interest is also measured by means outside of TV. Equipment sales, ticket sales, tournament, league participation, HS participation. You going to tell us bowling has more participation than tennis? Again doubt you can do that. Bowling does not even register.

Much to your chagrin, tennis is doing better than you think.
projectplay.org

Youth Sports Facts: Participation Rates - Project Play

Project Play collects and distributes national participation rates for kids in youth sports each year.
projectplay.org projectplay.org
 
Do you think the Project Play stays are accurate? For 13-17yo’s, it shows regular golf participation up 49% and tennis up 25% from 2019 to 2022 with baseball down 16% and all other sports even or down. The only way I see growth in tennis is if survey respondents considered all racquet sports including pickleball in the tennis category. Seen kids playing pickleball this year at our neighborhood courts as well as Lifetime over the last 1-2 years.
 
jcgatennismom said:
Do you think the Project Play stays are accurate? For 13-17yo’s, it shows regular golf participation up 49% and tennis up 25% from 2019 to 2022 with baseball down 16% and all other sports even or down. The only way I see growth in tennis is if survey respondents considered all racquet sports including pickleball in the tennis category. Seen kids playing pickleball this year at our neighborhood courts as well as Lifetime over the last 1-2 years.
Click to expand...
I cherry picked this one as it look best to me for my battle with Bob. :-D There were others but in a rush and at a glance the data look somewhat similar. Pickleball has the most growth for sure. Not sure of the methodology, but I'm sure they take a number of factors into consideration when coming up with their numbers.

Remember, 2019 - 2022 included covid year 2020 when most team sports shut down or did not play. During that time individual sports like golf and tennis went up for "safety" reasons.
 
andfor said:
Golf had been ahead of tennis for years captain. Golf courses closed due to lack of membership and play, not due to your conspiracy theory. Next thing you'll tell is those courses that closed where paid to do so by elite country clubs.

What would be more insightful as opposed to visual generalizations would be ratings per each broadcast. Not the PGA, Your examples, College Bowling on CBS vs. NCAA tennis championships on ESPN+.

BTW, while TV does produce a lot of revenue for sports leagues and teams, it does not mean they all get paid when they are on TV. Can you also show us what CBS paid college bowling to be broadcast? Doubt it. It may be news to you, but sports interest is also measured by means outside of TV. Equipment sales, ticket sales, tournament, league participation, HS participation. You going to tell us bowling has more participation than tennis? Again doubt you can do that. Bowling does not even register.

Much to your chagrin, tennis is doing better than you think.
projectplay.org

Youth Sports Facts: Participation Rates - Project Play

Project Play collects and distributes national participation rates for kids in youth sports each year.
projectplay.org projectplay.org
Click to expand...
So many golf courses were closed due to the high annual fee. I live near Riverbend CC in Great falls Virginia and the initiation fee is at 100K and the annual fee is around 25K. Not many people can afford 25K on top of the 100K payment up front, only the wealthy could afford at that price.

The point is that college bowling is shown on CBS sport network, free if you subscribe to it whereas college tennis is shown only on ESPN+ (meaning that you still have to pay even if you subscribe to regular to ESPN). Obviously, more eyeballs on CBS network than ESPN+, thus creating more revenue for that sport, regardless of who would get that revenue. TV people do things like this because of revenue and they wouldn't show college bowling over college tennis if tennis can make them more money than bowling. I remembered another time where CBS sports network showed Professional Bull Riding (PBR) instead of college tennis. In other words, to TV execs, anything is better than college tennis.

Public tennis courts in Fairfax county where I live sit empty most of the times while Pickleball are exploding and taking over tennis courts.
 
andfor said:
I cherry picked this one as it look best to me for my battle with Bob. :-D There were others but in a rush and at a glance the data look somewhat similar. Pickleball has the most growth for sure. Not sure of the methodology, but I'm sure they take a number of factors into consideration when coming up with their numbers.

Remember, 2019 - 2022 included covid year 2020 when most team sports shut down or did not play. During that time individual sports like golf and tennis went up for "safety" reasons.
Click to expand...
Pickleball and Disc Golf took off during COVID, but baseball and softball still way up. Tennis seems static, seeing smaller draws in many junior tournaments over the past 12-18 months
 
@andfor @JLyon Found USTA's tennis participation report for 2024 (based on 2023 data) online. Participation for all ages was up during pandemic. The report defined tennis players two ways: 1) tennis player was a player who played at least once during 12 months period 2) core tennis player played at least 10x over 12 months. For the 6-17 age group, tennis players declined from 6.9MM to 5.9MM from 2021 to 2023 ($1MM drop or 14%). However the more important participation of core tennis players 6-17yo dropped from 3.8MM in 2021 to 3.5MM in 2023 just a drop of 8%. In 2019 there were only 2.7MM core players in that age group, so more than half of the new juniors who regularly played tennis during the pandemic stuck around. Overall the growth of core players 6-17yo grew 37% from 2019-2023. Too bad there are not statistics of the % in that age range that played 6+ tournaments or at least a dozen tournament matches in 2019 vs 2023. Many rec level has grown-not sure about the tournament playing group. Not easy to find that number with tournaments split between UTR and USTA, HS participation is tricky too as it is above junior rec level and mostly lower than tournament level with the exception of playoff teams in some states.

Pickleball participation at least once per year for all ages has grown from 3.5MM in 2019 to 13.6MM in 2023-almost 400% increase. Tennis for all ages grew from 17.7MM in 2019 to 23.8MM in 2023. I don't know if these numbers are significantly understated because there are UTR tennis players who never play USTA, and some of the 80K ALTA players in ATL never play USTA either. The surveys used were not directly from USTA so maybe UTR participation is included.

One other interesting fact: Tennis was offered in over 20,000 schools across the country as part of their physical education programs, giving 5.9 million children access to the sport. That surprised me. I read in a different report 150K boys played high school tennis and 181K girls played HS tennis in 2022/23.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Important article to read-implies college tennis should be 1st sport to go in light of COVID budget cuts
2 3
Replies
123
Views
11K
MarTennis
MarTennis
Back
Top