Is a College Coach’s Salary Justified?
December 11th, 2008 - byIts a tough economy these days, unless you are a high profile football coach. Take a look at Alabama Coach Nick Saban pulling in between $5-4 million this year while his “bosses,” Alabama President Robert Witt and Gov. Bob Riley earn $611,000 and $105,000 respectively. The Wall Street Journal recently wrote about the two fundamental differences in 
the pay scale.
The first is simple supply and demand. With all due respect to the many great teachers, it’s easier to replace them than Mr. Saban, Ohio State’s Jim Tressel or Penn State’s Joe Paterno (who makes a paltry $500,000 a year).
“The talent that Saban, Tressel and other coaches have is relatively scarce,” Phil Miller, an assistant professor of economics at Minnesota State University, Mankato, wrote on The Sports Economist blog. “On the other hand, the talent it takes to teach effectively, for example, at the collegiate level is more abundant. So the price of coaching talent is much higher than the salary obtained by most professors.” Or, as legendary Ohio State football coach Woody Hayes once told an antisports prof: “I can do your job, but you can’t do mine.”
The other problem with the salary comparison is that Alabama taxpayers aren’t paying Mr. Saban, and so his salary doesn’t take any money away from professors. One of the benefits to come out of the rampant commercialism of college athletics is that media conglomerates and sneaker companies are willing to pay huge sums for the broadcast and apparel rights. Thus, Mr. Saban will be paid out of Alabama’s $70 million athletic budget, with little or no impact on academic departments.
However, does this set the wrong precedent? Shouldn’t coaches either accept a pay scale more in line with their peers or move on to the professional leagues? On the other hand, don’t they justify these salaries by bring the university money in endorsements, post-season revenue and prestige? What do you think?
December 11th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I believe it clearly sets the wrong type of statement at our universities. Clearly college presidents and deans are far more valuable than a coach who simply teaches a simple game. Educators are not only in charge of hundreds if not thousands of students, but also responsible for cutting age research that will affect the future of mankind.
December 11th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
If someone is willing to pay for the service a coach provides then I have no problem with them doing so. I realize even though the coaches are in some cases state employees, this is no different than a state privatizing one of its assets in order to improve efficiency which they will have to pay a handsome price for.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Here’s the key paragraph: The other problem with the salary comparison is that Alabama taxpayers aren’t paying Mr. Saban, and so his salary doesn’t take any money away from professors. One of the benefits to come out of the rampant commercialism of college athletics is that media conglomerates and sneaker companies are willing to pay huge sums for the broadcast and apparel rights. Thus, Mr. Saban will be paid out of Alabama’s $70 million athletic budget, with little or no impact on academic departments.
If all schools are playing by these rules, then I say allow the market to dictate the salary. I wonder if all schools due, in fact, operate the way Alabama does. If not, they should, (NCAA oversight here), since I don’t want to see coaches salaries coming out of taxpayer dollars.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
It’s really to bad coaches can get that kind of money and still act they why they do. The coach from USI that left to go to Auburn son be, was just in for the money and that’ wrong.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
No wonder why college tuition is so expensive and it goes up every year.
December 16th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Let’s face it, major college coaches bring in a lot of money. Not only are there lots of high price tickets, but each drink, hot dog, and t-shirt sold at games are way over priced. If a college coach works a program up to a high level, and therefore the school is benefiting from that money, then a portion of that should go towards the coach. The more money a program brings in, the more a coach should proportionally make.
December 16th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
It’s all about the money. It was reported last year that Penn State’s Football Program grossed $44M and NETTED $30M for the University. When a head coach can deliver that kind of money plus positive media exposure, then he deserves to be well compensated. You also need to consider the additional hours (travel, phone calls, etc.) that he commits to in addition to his coaching duties.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
If it’s all about the money, then what is the difference in what colleges are doing to exploit athletes for profit and slavery. If colleges are using supposedly amateur athletes (both black & white) to make money, then that is slavery. You can’t use the benefit of future professional sports as justification because such a small percentage of college athletes will ever have that opportunity. We need to be concerned about the EDUCATION of these athletes first. Put the STUDENT back into student-athlete. When that happens, you’ll see the money problem evaporate. But that is why we will never see it happen – MONEY!
March 20th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Wow this post help me learn more about finances, and changed my mind towards making money, investing, etc. Thank you man.