The Sports Economist

Cynthia Cooper-Dyke cannot fathom it: the Houston Comets, the team she guided to the W.N.B.A.’s first four championships, were shuttered Tuesday by the league, which scheduled a dispersal draft of their players, except the free agents, for Monday.

...The league took control of the Comets over the summer from their underfinanced owner, Hilton Koch, a furniture retailer who acquired the team [ed: for $10 million] in early 2007.

Labels: sports economics, womens basketball

Here.

“The Women’s Final Four has once again shown it is a proven winner on and off the court,” said Sue Donohoe, NCAA vice president of Division I women’s basketball. “Our corporate champions and corporate partners enjoy the strong outreach provided by our championship, and our loyal fans continue to support our game.” The $19.1 million economic impact includes $16,655,769 in visitor spending; $2,399,936 in organizational spending; and $1,835,927 in taxes and charges (including hotel taxes, car rental taxes, sales tax, and airport passenger facility charges). Overall, there were 22,595 visitors to the Tampa Bay area at the Women’s Final Four, the Time Out in Tampa event and Hoop City. Of this total, 21,067 were considered “valid visitors,” when excluding those who switched a planned trip to the host city to coincide with the Women’s Final Four; and those visiting for other reasons. Valid visitors stayed an average of 4.2 days and spent an average of $208 per day in Tampa, according to the study. When spending on merchandise is adjusted to account for only 20 percent of those funds staying in the host city, the average daily total spending by valid visitors was $190. The $190 spending figure includes $63 on food and beverage; $53 on lodging; $42 on transportation; $15 on retail shopping; $12 on non-NCAA entertainment; and $4 on merchandise.

I looked for the document on the Performance Research website, but couldn't find it. It seems that the researchers rightly tried to exclude what I call "rearranged spending", spending that would have occurred in the local area in the absence of the tournament. For instance, the article notes that they did not count attendees who had planned to come to Tampa anyways but switched their plans to attend the Final Four.

But it's not clear whether they deleted any implicit or explicit public subsidization from the overall impact. It's also not clear if any measures were taken to account for any folks who may have not come to or stayed in Tampa because of the Final Four. That's not surprising since the survey was given to those who actually attended Final Four events. But it's still part of the overall picture.

So without these numbers, I take this as an estimate of the gross impact.

Cross-posted at Market Power

Labels: economic impact, final four, womens basketball

Much seems rosy in the women's game until you get to the bottom line for the 2005-06 season: a staggering $169-million in losses. That total is for the 333 schools in NCAA Division I as reported to the U.S. Department of Education. The figure is probably conservative because 80 schools reported their expenses matched their revenues, to the last dollar.

Still, proponents say it's a worthwhile investment in giving women's basketball a chance to catch up to the older and more established men's game.

"The emphasis has been placed on putting more money, more energy, more manpower on women's basketball," said Candice Storey, senior women's administrator at Vanderbilt, which lost more money on women's basketball than any school in 2005-06. "It's just a slow process getting it to translate to real dollars."

At the sport's highest level, in the 11 largest conferences, the losses are more than $1-million per school, with 18 schools losing more than $2-million, according to the DOE. Men's basketball, by comparison, generated a $240-million profit in the same year, largely on two things the women still lack: a lucrative TV package and strong attendance. The women's game is still working to build the national audience and fanatical interest the men have enjoyed for decades.

If powerhouses such as Connecticut are the rare economic model, the success story that all women's programs hope to be, they also may be part of the difficulty schools have in getting there.

Auriemma told the Times before this season that the parity coming to women's basketball may be something that helps the sport become profitable. As much as dynasties such as Tennessee and the Huskies have given exposure to their game, Auriemma said the sport needs the any-given-Sunday chaos of the NFL, where huge upsets can come on any field, even at the Super Bowl.

Labels: NCAA, womens basketball