NCAA president Mark Emmert made $3.9 million last year
- Thread starter WildcatfaninOhio
- Start date
So you create the "have's" and "have not's" even within a team. It's still a terrible idea and you'd have to define "ROI" for me. In this case, it can mean a lot of different things.
As soon as you say "labor", you've lost the discussion. Multiple courts have ruled that student-athletes are not employees. As for the growth of the NCAA, their infrastructure is not static, neither is their cost for outside legal assistance and the cost of running the tournaments. These are very big numbers. In 2001 they gave back right at 50% of total revenue, today they are giving back right at 60%. If you're going to make the claim that they are personally enriching themselves, I think you should support such an accusation with some facts. There are several university presidents with total pay in the same range as Emmerts.
Yeah but he lost that one million dollar 'Duke makes it to the Final 4' bonus.
He had to settle for the 'Any other ACC team wins the Championship' 250k bonus with Virginia covering.
So there's that. The job has risks.....
You must be new. JPScott doesn't lose discussions. Ever. Sorry. A law degree doesn't make you a winner vis-a-vis Kentucky basketball. See,ie.,Blue Devil Matty.
And university presidents run universities. Emmerts runs nothing but a protection scheme.
New? Sure. Jon is a legend here but that doesn't mean he's always right. Everyone loses discussions, particularly when they are wrong on basic facts. The NCAA president mostly comes from university presidents, that's why the point is valid. Our opinion of Emmert and the NCAA has no relevance to his pay.
You prove my point. Kindly remind us what their revenue was in 2001 and what their revenue is today.
No, I didn't. Look at the tax returns. Just the tournaments expenses alone took 14% of their total revenue. They have likely doubled their staff in that time, the organization is much more complex than it used to be. Employee expense is only about 7% of total revenue.
Welp, apparently at least one poster here thinks Emmert earns his money. We’re a big tent.
What I don't get is how Emmert KEEPS his job considering how completely incompetent he is? Besides the entire PSU debacle, according to one article quoting NCAA staff, they have to do everything they can to keep him from shooting off his mouth. His comments on Kanter were completely inappropriate and he has not kept his promise to keep the NCAA clean of cheating by punishing those who do cheat.
And, remember the article that said that the NCAA had illegally released at least one player's transcripts? Nobody can convince me that Emmert wasn't at least somewhat responsible for Bledsoe's transcript being released and feeding Thamel inside info on UK. Thamel had to have inside info to know some of the stuff he knew. All this happened on Emmert's watch.
I guess that's me. Nope, I simply believe he's paid pretty normally for the position. Emmert himself is a weasel and that's slandering weasels.
How much of that 3.9 million of emmert's salary did duke, north Carolina, and kansas pay, 93.7 % ?
Alright I did a quick look comparing the 2000 tax return with the 2016 tax return.
Based on that, television revenues increased from $256 million up to $821 million (an increase of 321%). Grants back to schools increased from $289 million up to $586 million (increase of 202%), which means the $ returned in grants lagged the rate of increase in TV revenue
Meanwhile % of money returned as grants compared to total revenue was 87.3% in 2000 and has dropped to 55.2% in 2016.
The overhead (i.e. expenses other than grants returned to schools) increased over 1100%!
I looked at the NCAA President's salary. In 2000 this was $608K a year. In 2016 $2.36 million was paid to Mark Emmert which was a 389% increase over 2000. If you use the 2017 figure of $3.9 million it's a 641% increase over 2000!
Just for reference, the rate of inflation between 2016 and 2000 was 39.4%.
What does this all suggest? Exactly what I said at the beginning. The NCAA is taking their TV windfall and instead of returning that back as grants to the schools to support the students (presumably), these monies are being diverted to other places, including huge increases in salaries for the officers themselves.
If this was a responsible non-profit organization these additional monies would be going directly back to the schools/athletes (i.e. their primary mission) and the % of revenue as grants would increase, rather than drop or remain stagnant.
As for number of employees, I did see that there were 629 employees. Not sure how many employees there were in 2000. If anyone can find that let me know.
Last edited:
Nobody has said that, are you so confident in your opinion that you just dismiss any opposing viewpoint as silly or childish (as your comment insinuates?)
You didn’t really answer any of my questions regarding the matter (which honestly is fine.)
More-so just broadly tip toed/ evaded around them all. I believe it’s because you know it’s a huge slippery slope and the “exploitation” factor doesn’t really hold much merit outside of emotions and 140 character count tweets.
You're still wrong. I do not agree with your conclusion and the evidence doesnt agree with your conclusion. At best you are splitting hairs.
Emmert serves the NCAA's Board of Governors. He keeps his job because he does what the Board of Governors tells him to do. When you hear Emmert speak he is saying what the schools want him to say and when he takes action he is taking the steps the schools want him to take. He would be fired if he did not follow their lead.
When I look at him I look for the strings that move his mouth and his appendages.
It seems there were also ~600 employees in 2010, I suppose that is when the IRS started asking for non-profit employee counts. Funnily enough the salaries haven’t stopped increasing though, I suppose the employees are just working twice as hard! Lol
Last edited:
unc is so dirty. thanks ncaa for cementing that. the carolina way is a continuous punchline.The Tarhole Pipeline - Oompa Loompa Eunuch
The NCAA is a fake organization that should be abolished. They have no power and apply their rules in an arbitrary manner.
I never assumed, nor stated any such thing.
I fully expect there to be some increase in operating expenses, either due to inflation (which as I noted was 39.4% between 2000 and 2016) or due to expansion of 'services'. (BTW also keep in mind that we know that in the last 10 years the NCAA has slashed their enforcement arm so in terms of that their 'services' have decreased, not increased, at least in that area, so it can't always be assumed that services always increase.)
The number of employees is also a factor yes, but as I think you've already noted the bucket for salaries is relatively small, and while the compensation for officers has exploded (i.e. quite a number of active and retired employees making $500K or more), I doubt that the salaries of rank and file employees has increased much more than typical for simlar jobs in other industries. So the relatively modest rise in # of employees over the last decade by itself does not explain the huge increase in overhead, although the inordinate increases in officer salaries does support my charge that the NCAA leadership is enriching themselves personally on the backs of student-athletes.
As I've said, what I expect with the windfall in TV revenue that the bulk of that money should be funneled back to the schools as grants. (i.e. the substantial increase in TV revenue should be mirrored in the increase as grants.) Instead it seems that windfall is going to an explosion in overhead, some part of which yes goes to salaries (including a noticeable exponential increase in the salaries of NCAA officers) among many other expenses (which includes legal bills and lobbying etc.) along with other initiatives (such as conferences and retreats) which themselves can be considered an additional perk for the employees.
If you want to argue that this organization is a well run non-profit which is conscientious and prudent with the money running through it, then the by all means make your case already. The numbers suggest otherwise.
Last edited:
Most organizations like this are not run well. I'm not disputing that. I will say that neither of us is privy to the internal workings of the NCAA. We don't know the what the resource requirements are and we don't know what financial pressures exist. That is my main complaint with your position. They have 7M in compensation for officers and key employees, which is 10% of their total employee expense. It's hard to see how that is enriching anyone off the backs of student-athletes. That statement you keep making is absolutely hyperbolic and intended to get an emotional response rather than a logical one. The NCAA may be terribly run and may waste millions of dollars but that is not the same as saying they are enriching themselves on the backs of student-athletes.
In comparing 2001 tax returns to 2017, there are some notable changes:
Grants - 53% of total revenue in 2001
Grants - 55% of total revenue in 2017
Expenses for 2017 as compared to 2001:
Running the D1-3 tournaments - expenses increased by 70M.
Outside legal - expenses increased by roughly 36M
Salaries - expenses increased by roughly 48M (mostly due to expansion of employees)
Travel - expenses increased by 11M
IT - expenses increased by 5M (it wasn't even a category in 2001)
Advertising - expenses increased by 15M
Occupancy - expenses increased by over 5M
Management services - expenses increased by 11M
This goes on and on and on. It is mostly related to changing times and organizational growth. I don't see anything that raises my eyebrows. While they may not be efficient, neither of us can know that, there are not crazy expenses that support your position.
Thank God for non-profit organizations like the NCAA. They help to keep profits away from their players.
I'm not sure very many who are informed will agree with you....Jon has offered multiple facts and you have offered comparisons such as the compensation of some university presidents. There is NO excuse for the NCAA to pay Emmert that much money whatsoever. If you want a comparison, why not at least consider what he was making and ask the legit question: Why is he worth THAT much more now than before?
"The NCAA is a tax-exempt, non-profit association that oversees the athletics of just under 1,300 universities. While the NCAA is not technically a government organization, it might as well be. It’s a burdensome bureaucracy that regulates the athletics of public universities, which are substantially funded and strictly regulated by the government. And like any government, the NCAA regulates in an attempt to restrict competition. As Lawrence Kahn noted, “Most economists who have studied the NCAA view it as a cartel that attempts to produce rents by restricting output and limiting payments for inputs such as player compensation.”[1]
https://www.valuewalk.com/2014/09/ncaa-business/
Well, I read Kahn's piece. He is a labor economist and considers players to be employees. They aren't. That isn't my opinion, that is the unanimous opinion of myriad courts. He frames his entire opinion around that theme. I don't agree with him. As you see in this piece https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/sites/i...kspan/02-11-Research-for-the-real-world_0.pdf that gives an overview of a Cornell study, both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations tend to pay their CEO (or whatever title the organizations leader has) in line with the size of the organization. If that is correct, then Emmert, as useless as he is, is being paid appropriately. Whether posters agree with me or not is irrelevant.
As for comparing what he made at Washington to what he makes now, it has gone up 4x. That is a lot and I don't think he deserves it however since 2009 the NCAA has grown a lot but just on a basic measure its revenue increased by 400M. Again, the top executive tends to be paid according to the size of the organization, however they choose to define "size".
That's funny. I have relied on Jon Scotts opinion and information for decades (no offense, JPS). He opens his mouth when he is right, and says nothing when he might not be. I have no idea who you are. Can't read your sources, and have no idea of your real name. You could be a ten year old kid or 90 year old granny, while claiming to be the Grand PooBah of Kashmir. So his credibility if off the charts compared to yours. No disrespect to your Indian heritage.
Are you some sort of nitwit? Learn to use a computer, read sources and regardless of someone's high credibility, they are not always right. Disagree with me all you want but how about using your own brain to do so.
I went back and reran the numbers starting the 1st full year Emmert was the President of the NCAA (2011). [Per Wikipedia he started his duties as NCAA President on November 1, 2010.]
In 2011, per the NCAA's 990 filing, the organization had 552 full-time employees and TV revenue of $708 million with grants returned to school $522 million. The % of monies returned to schools as grants was 62.1%. Emmert was paid $1.416 million.
Comparing the 2016 filing (which is the most recent filing I have access to) compared to the 2011 filing, TV revenue increased 16%, grants increased 12% (but the overall % dropped from 62.1% down to 55.2%). The # of employees increased 14%.
These are all fairly modest increases, although well ahead of the rate of inflation which was 6.7% between 2016 and 2011.
What wasn't modest was Emmert's compensation. His compensation increased 67% (175% if you count from 2011 up to 2017). The overall overhead of the organization (i.e. everything that wasn't a grant) increased 49%. (and as I already mentioned the % of monies returned as grants decreased, when if anything it should be increasing.)
As I said from the beginning, this is clear evidence that the NCAA is diverting revenue away from their primary purpose (and the entire reason for them receiving tax-free status) and putting the money to other things, including their own personal salaries which by definition is personal enrichment.
You try to argue that CEO's should be compensated based on the size of their organization, and to a point I agree, but in this case:
1.) I don't agree that 'size' of the NCAA should be defined by the size of the TV check they cash every year. Whether they are cashing a $100 million check or a $1 billion check it really has no material effect on the size of the organization or the resources required to run the organization.
A better measure would be the number of employees or the number of tournaments they host etc. And while that has no doubt increased some of the years, it certainly doesn't justify Emmert's exorbinant increase in salary.
2.) To further that point, I simply don't believe that the NCAA's expenses have increased at such a high rate (in this case 49% between 2016 and 2011) as compared to the rate of inflation, unless the NCAA is going out of their way to spend on things they don't actually need.
In other words if the NCAA's revenue was to somehow double over the next few years, based on their spending habits I fully expect that the NCAA will find ways to spend this money. (for example you yourself provide an example where over a number of years the % of monies returned as grants seems to remain constant, despite large increases in TV revenue.)
You seem to argue that their dramatic expenditures in overhead are warranted, but haven't provided any evidence that it's needed, or that the organization itself is expanding dramatically (as I noted the increase in the # of employees is only 14% (629 in 2016 vs. 552 in 2011).
3.) In the article you link, it itself notes that CEO increases is only a fraction of the increase in the revenue or size of the organization. For example the author cites a 1% increase in the company revenue results in 0.3% increase in CEO pay for for-profit organization (i.e. 30% of company's rate of increase) and 0.2% increase for non-profits. (i.e. 20% of companies rate of increase)
Emmert is at nearly 3X the rate (300%!), an order of magnitude above what your own article suggests is normal (for a for-profit business no less).
4.) We obviously disagree on this, but as I've mentioned before, in the case where an organization is claiming tax-exempt status, then in order to maintain that they should IMO adhere to the mandate that they were given, which in this case is to benefit the student-athlete.
To that end, any additional revenue that they receive should primarily be used for the original purpose (which should be grants) while trying to keep expenses low. It shouldn't be to invent ways to squander the money on other things that aren't in line with the original purpose.
Any money that is diverted away from that purpose is simply not serving the student-athlete. I would hope that whoever granted them this monopoly (which in this case is Congress) would review what the organization is doing with regard to their (mis)use of revenue and review their non-profit status.
The fact that they gave UNC a pass after their academic scandal tells me that the NCAA is only out for themselves and is not holding up their end of the bargain in terms of providing an opportunity to receive a quality education.
A better measure would be the number of employees or the number of tournaments they host etc. And while that has no doubt increased some of the years, it certainly doesn't justify Emmert's exorbinant increase in salary.
2.) To further that point, I simply don't believe that the NCAA's expenses have increased at such a high rate (in this case 49% between 2016 and 2011) as compared to the rate of inflation, unless the NCAA is going out of their way to spend on things they don't actually need.
In other words if the NCAA's revenue was to somehow double over the next few years, based on their spending habits I fully expect that the NCAA will find ways to spend this money. (for example you yourself provide an example where over a number of years the % of monies returned as grants seems to remain constant, despite large increases in TV revenue.)
You seem to argue that their dramatic expenditures in overhead are warranted, but haven't provided any evidence that it's needed, or that the organization itself is expanding dramatically (as I noted the increase in the # of employees is only 14% (629 in 2016 vs. 552 in 2011).
3.) In the article you link, it itself notes that CEO increases is only a fraction of the increase in the revenue or size of the organization. For example the author cites a 1% increase in the company revenue results in 0.3% increase in CEO pay for for-profit organization (i.e. 30% of company's rate of increase) and 0.2% increase for non-profits. (i.e. 20% of companies rate of increase)
Emmert is at nearly 3X the rate (300%!), an order of magnitude above what your own article suggests is normal (for a for-profit business no less).
4.) We obviously disagree on this, but as I've mentioned before, in the case where an organization is claiming tax-exempt status, then in order to maintain that they should IMO adhere to the mandate that they were given, which in this case is to benefit the student-athlete.
To that end, any additional revenue that they receive should primarily be used for the original purpose (which should be grants) while trying to keep expenses low. It shouldn't be to invent ways to squander the money on other things that aren't in line with the original purpose.
Any money that is diverted away from that purpose is simply not serving the student-athlete. I would hope that whoever granted them this monopoly (which in this case is Congress) would review what the organization is doing with regard to their (mis)use of revenue and review their non-profit status.
The fact that they gave UNC a pass after their academic scandal tells me that the NCAA is only out for themselves and is not holding up their end of the bargain in terms of providing an opportunity to receive a quality education.
Last edited:
I'll answer this tomorrow. I checked 2011 real quickly and they did not give grants anywhere near that amount.
Similar threads
