Maximizing Ticket Sales Revenue at State U: Time to Outsource?

Following the NCAA’s ruling to allow college athletes to be compensated for their name, image, and likeness (NIL), the marketing team at LEARFIELD, a premier multi-media rights partner for intercollegiate athletics, is hard at work to expand its leadership in (NIL) initiatives to best serve school and brand partners. The company has witnessed drastic changes in college athletics in the past five years and closely monitors the changes in student-athlete compensation as college athletes began earning money for their name, image, and likeness. LEARFIELD’s college business partners still retain control of their brand assets but now student athletes are free to engage in many activities that were once prohibited and on their own terms. While this has created a new frontier for young athletes, schools and businesses must consider how best to coordinate schools, brands, and student-athletes in a way that benefits all parties. The company must ensure that its services are holistic and consider all partners as it serves a variety of stakeholders: universities, conferences, brands, student-athletes, and the collegiate sports industry. Student-athlete NIL creates a new opportunity/division for LEARFIELD.

The landscape of college athletics is forever changing, and in July 2016 the Big 12 conference announced its intentions to explore a new round of expansion. The smallest of the 'Power Five' conferences in NCAA D1 FBS, the Big 12's quest for football competitiveness and the need for a conference championship game drive a complex and layered analysis of the best path forward. With consideration of the Big 12's national media rights, revenue sharing agreements, brand-building/recruiting opportunities, and structural dynamics, this case allows students to conduct both an internal and external analysis of the Conference's decision making process while weighing a myriad of stakeholder priorities.

Across the United States, colleges and universities are closing their doors at an unprecedented rate. Many of these schools fall within the NAIA and NCAA Division III athletics level, and have a higher cost of attendance (after scholarships are discounted) than their NCAA Division I or II counterparts. In recent years, these schools have seen a steady decline in general student body attendance (i.e. non-student athletes). This case study focuses on one strategy implemented by these schools to survive, and sometimes thrive: a reliance on intercollegiate athletics participation. Under the context of a recently closed institution, students will learn concepts such as roster quotas, discount rates, and emerging sports development, while analyzing the financial realities inherent in NAIA and DIII college athletics administration.

For nearly a century, owners of U.S. professional sports teams have lobbied respective governmental bodies for public subsidies to build stadiums and arenas across the country, using franchise relocation as leverage. Myriad justifications have been used as a defense for the public subsidization of this private enterprise, ranging from the economic impact of capital intensive projects to the psychic regional benefit of being a host city to a professional sports franchise. But do these justifications hold up under increased scrutiny? In this case, students are placed in the position of the Mayor of Oakland as she is faced with a dilemma regarding publicly subsidizing a new Raiders stadium. Students will examine the issue through the lens of multiple key stakeholders, and will ultimately have to decide whether the city should utilize public funds to keep the Davis family happy and the Raiders in Oakland, or withhold funding for public good and risk the franchise relocating elsewhere.