Search News


Browse Archives

News

Good Seats, Hard Sell

September 22, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A luxury suite for the big football game on campus just is not the status symbol it used to be, and a number of college athletics programs are paying the price for their donors’ belt tightening.

The University of Minnesota at Twin Cities, for example, debuted its new, $300 million TCF Bank Stadium Sept. 12 against the Air Force Academy, after spending three decades off campus at the multi-use Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome. Though Minnesota has sold virtually all of its outdoor seats – from general admission areas to more expensive box and club seats – it has yet to meet benchmarks for season sales of its premium suites and indoor club seats. An entire suite costs $40,500 and an individual club seat costs $2,250, respectively.

“The economy didn’t help any,” said David Crum, associate athletics director for development at Minnesota. “It was yet another challenge for us to face. During the sales process this January, we had conversations with a number of major Fortune 500 companies here in the area. We had three there in one week tell us that they were looking to lay off people and that they didn’t feel like they could buy premium suites at a time like this. It was a perception problem for them. We fully understood that, of course.”

Minnesota had expected to sell nearly all of its 37 premium suites and 259 indoor club seats for the entire season. As the university was able to sell only three-fourths of its luxury suites and just over half of its indoor club seats in this manner, it has had to resort to selling them on a game-by-game basis.

The poor economy, however, may not be the only reason for the slow sales of premium seats at Minnesota’s new stadium. One culprit, another athletic official suggests, may be the lack of alcohol at the stadium.

“We had a plan in place to sell alcohol in these premium areas but not in the general areas,” said Garry Bowman, a spokesman for Minnesota athletics. “However, the governor said we either had to sell it everywhere or not sell it at all. So, our regents decided not to sell alcohol, given that 20 percent of our crowds are students, most of which are underage. Still, this reversal did have an effect. Some people who were on the fence about getting a suite considered this a tipping point and decided, ‘Maybe we don’t need that suite after all.’ You can’t look at the selling numbers and say it was all the economy.”

Two season ticket buyers who had signed contracts pulled out because of the change in alcohol policy, Crumb said, adding that a third buyer who was close to signing a contract also cited the policy change for not closing the deal. To retain as many ticket buyers as possible, Minnesota is offering discounts of between 10 and 25 percent for premium suites and indoor club seats. Those who have already purchased them are also getting a reimbursement for the same amount.

“Nobody knows what the silver bullet is for selling these things,” said Crumb, noting that he thought the university would still be able to pay off its debt service for the stadium despite the low sales figures. “It’s tradition, supply and demand, and wins and losses. We are not selling as many as we can, but if we are winning, it’ll be easier to sell these and they will still be companies that will jump on board in the future.”

Photo: Bruce Kluckhohn, University of Minnesota

Premium suite at TCF Bank Stadium.

Back east, the University of Maryland at College Park is also having trouble paying for its recent $50.8 million renovations to Byrd Stadium, whose added amenities were meant to have generated profit for the athletics department. As of its first home game Sept. 12, Maryland has sold only 41 of its 64 luxury suites for long-term commitments, mostly seven years. These cost between $40,000 and $50,000 annually. Also, it has sold around two-thirds of the new 440 mezzanine seats for the season. These cost between $800 and $1,200 annually.

“The economy is what it is,” said Brian Ullman, a spokesman for Maryland athletics. “I wish it was different, but it’s not. Still, I think we’re going to be able to sell out the suite and mezzanine seats eventually, maybe next year. It’s really hard to judge the impact of the recession on this. But, when we’re winning, everybody’s happy and things are up.”

The original plan, Ullman said, was that the sale of the suites would pay for the entirety of the university’s $2.4 million debt service for the renovation project and the sale of mezzanine seats would be considered “bonus revenue.” Given the slow sales, however, Ullman said the university has had to offset the suite sales with mezzanine dollars. Now, about 10 percent of the debt service is being paid from mezzanine sales.

Though Ullman is convinced that sales of these premium seats will pick up with the economy, he said the downturn has shown the university something about fan and corporate loyalty.

“When we first conceived that we’d have 64 suites, we thought about half of them would be bought by corporations and the other half would be bought by people from our donor base,” Ullman said. “What we’ve found out is that, in very general terms here, the support from the donor base is larger, while the economy has had a greater impact on our corporate market. Twenty-five of the 41 suites we’ve sold have been purchased by individual donors.”

Photo: Shawn Nestor, University of Maryland

New box seats at Byrd Stadium.

Some universities, already in the midst of stadium renovations projects, are more optimistic than others in spite of the poor economy. The University of Michigan, in a state that has taken quite a beating during the current recession, hopes to complete a $226 million renovation of Michigan Stadium by the 2010 football season.

Though Michigan officials did not respond to requests for comment about the project, a recent Associated Press report notes that the university has sold nearly 70 percent of the 82 new luxury suites and 3,000 club seats. The luxury suites cost between $55,000 and $85,000 annually, while the club seats cost between $1,500 and $4,000 annually.

Still, Joe Parker, senior associate athletics director for development at Michigan, told the AP that “some fans have scaled back their commitments, downgrading from suites to club seats" because of the economy. He added that he expected all of the premium seats to be sold by the time the renovation is complete.

Photo: Martin Vloet, University of Michigan

Donors tour new construction at Michigan Stadium.

Dreary news about ticket sales for recently completed or ongoing stadium projects has not discouraged all institutions from pursuing the construction of premium seating in hopes of generating a profit. Later this week, the University of Kansas will introduce a plan before its Board of Regents for a $34 million renovation of Memorial Stadium that would add 3,000 premium seats, both outdoor and indoor.

“We’ve done a lot of research and focus groups with fans, and we just think the time is right,” said Jim Marchiony, a Kansas spokesman. “The economy really hasn’t played too much into our conversation. We had many of these discussions about the plan last year, when the economy was at its worst. When you plan something like this you’ve got to be more concerned about your situation that other people’s situation. We’re confident this is going to work for us.”

Kansas athletics is so confident its venture into premium seating will make money that it has already made a $40 million commitment to direct profit from the seats to the university’s academic departments.

“I’m not sure of a timetable, but I’m confident we will be able to provide the money to the university,” Marchiony said. “The athletic director has already spoken to the chancellor and made this commitment. What comes first is paying for the building, obviously, but this is our next priority.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Good Seats, Hard Sell

  • Trustee Responsibilities
  • Posted by Jim Garland on September 22, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • I certainly wish these schools well in selling their luxury boxes and rehabbing their stadiums. I just hope that the trustees who sign off on these multimillion dollar projects also spend some time thinking about the dilapidated classrooms, lagging professor and staff salaries, growing legions of underpaid itinerant faculty, larger class sizes, and soaring tuition charges at their universities.

  • The Truth About the Boxes
  • Posted by Big Time Football Fan at Big Ten & S.E.C. on September 22, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • To tell you the truth, I prefer being down in the crowd almost anywhere than being up in a luxury box. I've had the honor of being invited to the president's suite for a game each year and I much prefer being down on the field or in the crowd anywhere, where I can feel the action and be part of what is going on. It is very hard to soak up the atmosphere when you are up above it all.
    I'm guessing that the hey day of the big boxes is losing its cache and fans are going back to real tailgating and real seats for football. College football, Big Ten or SEC can't be beat.

  • Empty suites (or is that "suits"?)
  • Posted by Ralphinjersey , Rabble Rouser on September 22, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • In the midst of this disastrous economy, what I find most disturbing about this article is the remark on behalf of the Fortune 500 execs that purchasing these luxury boxes amid mass layoffs "is a perception issue."

    It's a priorities issue -- and their failure to understand that, as well as to prioritize in the past, is a direct cause of the mess this country is in.

    If there's to be any silver lining to this cloud, perhaps some of these empty stadium spaces can be used to relieve classroom overcrowding, since genuine capital needs are going unmet due to budgetary constraints?

  • ...Self-Supporting, Jim...
  • Posted by Dr. C , Consultant at University of Oklahoma on September 22, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • Jim first it is important to understand that these football programs are self supporting and generate hundreds of millions and in some cases billions of dollars annually. If a Board of Regents elect to spend tens of millions of dollars on a renovation project, they will do so with full certainty, knowing that not one dime, penny, or nickel will come from the university’s and or the taxpayers dollar.

    These billion dollar athletic programs have been and continue to be extremely generous in supporting the universities mission in their pursuit of academic excellence. Faculty and staff members should in fact be grateful and excited to be apart of a Division 1 football program that is winning, because winning in many cases mean additional exposure and increased revenue. It’s fairly simple Jim, football programs are not responsible for underpaid faculty or larger class sizes; they in many cases provide a financial solution to these problems. One should learn the meaning of self-supporting and then apply the concept.

    -Dr. C-

  • $$$
  • Posted by lcl on September 22, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • Dr. C - I'd be very curious to see your data, particularly the implied claim that these programs generate billions of dollars in net revenue. If you are only claiming that they generate sales with no eye at their expenses, then you're missing a key half of the equation.

    All the research I have seen has indicated there are in the ballpark of 15-20 athletic programs in Division I that are revenue-positive. Oklahoma, sure, Michigan sure. The majority of Division I athletic programs are, strictly speaking, revenue-negative (I can't speak for Division II but I believe all Division III programs are revenue-negative).

    I don't believe the athletics programs at Maryland or Minnesota are on that list of revenue-positive schools.

    Now, to be fair there have been backers who have tried to quantify the impact of athletics on broader giving to colleges/universities (positing athletics as a 'loss leader' so to speak) but the results of these studies have been mixed at best. I'm led to believe you haven't actually read any of the literature (either pro or con) on the topic.

  • Dr. C, you missed the point
  • Posted by Liz on September 22, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • I think Jim's point was about academic priorities, not whether big time football programs are self-supporting (the large majority, as noted by lcl are not). Public universities, especially the huge flagships, have dozens of "profit centers" - hotels, conference centers, bookstores, summer sports camps, TV stations, health clubs, catering businesses, and on and on - and some make money and some don't. The concern, at least among many professors, is that academic priorities seem often to get lost in the shuffle. All these business ventures command so much attention from university leaders that sometimes it seems as if nobody really cares any more about the school's core educational mission. And, Dr. C., imagine how it must seem to professors who watch their schools and jobs deteriorate, even as those same schools provide luxury accomodations for rich alumni and business people. The symbolism speaks volumes about academic values, no matter what the funding source.

  • Dr. C. is out of touch
  • Posted by CommProf on September 22, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • lcl and Liz have it exactly right. Dr.C. is only right about 20 BCS programs; the other 100 or so don't even break even, let alone turn a profit. And in the Division I playoff group (old I-AA) they are all a drain on their university. I don't know about Division II, either, but I would offer an educated guess that it's the same story. And of course Division III pays for athletics just as something for the kids to do -- you know, have fun, which was what it was all about at one time -- like in the '70s when I played Division III hockey.

  • Use for Luxury Suites
  • Posted by Kenny The Kid , Law School at UCLA on September 22, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Why not use them for classrooms the rest of the week?

  • opportunity costs
  • Posted by Mark on September 22, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Even if these programs are self-sustaining (about which I have my doubts), they still have a cost, as any money given in donations, corporate sponsorships, etc, that goes to stadiums is money that doesn't get given to academic programs, library or even community organization. Think of what a community food bank could do with a small portion of the money being "donated" to name a stadium.

  • ...again I say self-supporting...
  • Posted by Dr. C , Consultant at University of Oklahoma on September 22, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • Some of you fail to understand that the issue here isn’t faculty pay or reducing class sizes. I simply wanted to explain how some not all division one universities increase profitability through athletic programs. I have studied the statistics, I have read the data, and I have a well rounded and sound understanding of how these things operate (lcl). Liz, one thing that you have to understand is that collegiate athletic programs are not set in place to primarily enhance a university’s budget. One cannot and should not expect such programs to fund every aspect of a university. Therefore, talk about dilapidated dormitories or slacking salaries for faculty members need not be addressed in this article because it is not relevant to the issues presented.

     

    Dr. C

     

  • Posted by talleyrand on September 22, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • Opportunity Costs's point that money that goes to stadiums isn't available for academic programs makes intuitive sense, but it doesn't actually work that way in my experience.

     

    Most of those dollars are not available for academic programs stadium box or no stadium box. The average athletic association donor is not choosing between renting a luxury box at the stadium and making an outright gift to benefit the English Department. The choice is more likely to be a matter of such options as the box, a boat, or keeping the money.

     

    Even if the same individual is a likely prospect for an English professorship (or whatever), the luxury box at the stadium is not often part of the same calculation in the donor's mind.

     

    So an unmade gift to an academic program doesn't tend to be an actual opportunity cost of paying for a luxury box or great seats down low. A new boat or a house in the mountains or re-investing the money for further gain is more likely to be the opportunity cost for such a decision. That's my experience, at least.

  • Not entirely self supporting
  • Posted by Munchener08 on September 22, 2009 at 6:45pm EDT
  • Some of these athletic corporations may seem self supporting, but in part that is because they do not pay all of their costs. How much have these corporations paid in property taxes on the multimillion dollar commercial properties? How much in sales taxes on ticket sales? Do they pay for all of the costs of the extra police and security required for such a large crowd flooding into the city?

    And, these contributions are tax deductible. If these donors are in the 10 percent tax bracket, the $50 million in donations means a loss of $5 million. Of course, most of these donors are in higher tax brackets. So, if the Federal or state governments fail to collect millions from these people, yet need funds to finance higher education or secondary education, or highway construction, they have to collect the money from the rest of us. In other words, we are all subsidizing these luxury boxes. Indeed, if you live in Oklahoma, you might be subsidizing the luxury boxes in Texas. Go horns!

  • Posted on September 22, 2009 at 8:45pm EDT
  • It would seem to me that there is a very easy way to determine the thrust of athletics at academic institutions:

    1) Note how many of these institutions are supported by substantial state funds appropriated by the state legislature. MIT, CIT, Rockefeller U and the U of Chicago do not rely upon state appropriations for their survival -- and none of them has a football team. All the institutions mentioned in the article are state supported or state assisted institutions.

    2) Quite simply, propose to your legislature that the legislature refuse to provide any funding for institutions that have football teams. It would be a great way to reduce state expenditures. Unfortunately, legislators probably know only too well that refusing to provide funding would result in their not being re-elected. I suspect that legislators may be more inclined to increase the appropriations for those institutions that can deliver winning teams year after year, especially if the stadium refurbishments come from private funds rahter than from public coffers.

    3) While they are indulging in self-pity, faculty members might note that some of the institutions that consistently produce winning teams also produce [consistently] some of the best medical schools, law schools, etc [ad infinitum], entities that seldom produce the visibility [no matter how superlative] that a winning football team can provide. These are the facts, like them or not.

  • Misplaced Values
  • Posted by Perturbed on September 23, 2009 at 6:45pm EDT
  • To the person who wrote the posting before me, you are correct. Those are the facts. Unfortunately, they are trivial to faculty and other people who are more concerned about knowledge generation, teaching and learning, serving the community, and educating the leaders of tomorrow's industry, government, and society in general....you know, those things that higher education is SUPPOSED to be about? You know, those things that our society and the world depend on? I could care less who is most visible because they won a bowl game last year because that is irrelevant to the mission of higher education. And, I HOPE that you're not foolish enough to be implying that visibility due to athletic programs is a cause of high quality programs, or more important than high quality academic programs.

  • Rutgers University
  • Posted by bronxboy on September 26, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • You should add the recently completed expansion of Rutgers Stadium from 44,000 to 56,000 to the list of big time football fiascos. The debt service on the 100 million dollar plus borrowed for the project was supposed to be paid with the money generated by the increased crowds at the enlarged pleasure palace. Even with two for one freebie tickets only one of the three games so far this year has sold out. The other two had announced crowds of 45,000 with less actually in the stands.