Good riddance, UAB football: Taxes shouldn’t subsidize college sports

By David McElroy · December 3, 2014

The University of Alabama at Birmingham announced this week that it’s shutting down its football program. All 17 fans are really upset about it.

For 20 years, UAB football has struggled to attract fans and donors. For the most part, its attendance has been a joke. The photo above is a fair representation of what it’s like to see a game at 71,000-seat Legion Field.

For last year’s football season, the Blazers averaged 11,589 tickets sold, but anyone who thinks there were that many people actually there is lying to himself. As part of that average number sold, however, the city of Birmingham bought 5,000 tickets for each game, costing city taxpayers $225,000. So fewer than 7,000 tickets were actually sold on average if you don’t count the tickets the city bought for politicians to give away. The 11,589 average was the second lowest in all of big-time college football last year.

The program has been a joke.

Now that the university has announced plans to shut the football program down, news stories are filled with outrage about this alleged travesty. The president of the Birmingham City Council called rumors of the impending shutdown “an attack on the city of Birmingham.” Many supporters of UAB claim that a powerful trustee of the University of Alabama system — the son of former Alabama Coach Bear Bryant — engineered the shutdown out of revenge for a letter written 20 years ago by UAB’s former basketball coach and athletic director.

All of these stories are silly and speculative. Even if they were true, though, they’re irrelevant. All that matters is that Alabama taxpayers are subsidizing this rather large hole in the ground to the tune of $20 million a year.

UAB president Ray Watts explained the decision to end the school’s football program in very clear financial terms. He laid out the facts in a way that the decision should seem obvious, but that hasn’t stopped local newspaper coverage from accusing him of being “cruel” and focusing too much on the numbers. National coverage — such as this story from ESPN — has generally treated Watts as though he had murdered a child or something equally heinous. The truth, though, is that he said continuing to fund football would require the university to take money away from areas that truly matter to its mission.

“While this will be a challenging transition for the UAB family, the financial picture made our decision very clear,” Watts said in UAB’s news release. “We will not cut the current athletic budget, but in order to invest at least another $49 million to keep football over the next five years, we would have to redirect funds away from other critical areas of importance like education, research, patient care or student services.” [Emphasis added.]

Do these people complaining about the decision understand that running a football program isn’t necessarily central to the mission of a medical research university?

The truth is that it’s becoming more and more expensive to run a football program at college football’s highest level. If your program isn’t profitable, you can’t keep competing unless you pour many millions of dollars into subsidizing the sport. Isn’t it time to ask why we’re using the coercion of state government to take the money out of taxpayers’ pockets for the benefit of a very few people?

I love college football and basketball. I follow University of Alabama sports closely, but it wouldn’t bother me if all college sports were shut down. I care a lot about Alabama football — and I love it when my alma mater wins championships — but my university shouldn’t exist just to support athletics. Sports aren’t core to a university’s mission.

If I had my way, major college sports as we know them would have never existed. But since they do — and they’re popular enough that they’re not going away — schools need to make decisions driven by the costs involved.

For schools with programs that make money, it’s an easy choice to stay in the game. The schools of the five top conferences typically have enough money coming to them from television revenue, ticket sales and private donations that they’re making money. Many of those schools also make a lot of money from licensing their names and logos for clothing and various other products. And there are also some which find a successful program helpful in recruiting students from around the country.

But for schools without profitable sports programs, someone needs to make smart and responsible financial decisions. Taxpayers shouldn’t be required to subsidize these sports with these many millions of dollars. Unprofitable programs need to be disbanded or they need to compete at lower levels of competition — unless they can find ways to get private funding.

Football programs at schools such as Alabama, Florida, Texas, Ohio State, Southern Cal and so forth are going to be profitable. Sports programs at much smaller schools — especially outside of football — are fairly inexpensive to operate and thus aren’t a burden on their schools. They don’t bring in big money, but they also don’t cost big money. So they provide a nice college atmosphere for the schools and educational opportunities for the athletes. There seems to be an obvious case to be made for programs at these two ends of the extremes, assuming college sports is going to exist at all.

It’s those in the middle — those schools without a financial base or profitable following — that are the problem. They’re like people who are broke but buy expensive houses. There’s nothing wrong with being broke and there’s nothing wrong with living in an expensive house, but you have to be realistic about what you can afford.

UAB is an excellent research institution. Its medical and dental schools are great. It does internationally recognized medical research. Its hospitals are nationally recognized in certain specialties. The university is the largest employer in Birmingham and it contributes greatly to the state and the city. But UAB needs to recognize what it is and what it’s not. It has no business pumping $20 million of taxpayer money into a program that relatively few people care about.

This is the problem when tax money is used to pay for things. Money is taken out of the pockets of millions of people to support the desires of a very small number of people. If those few people want UAB football to exist, they should pony up the money. If they’re unwilling or unable to put up the money, the program shouldn’t exist.

Despite the emotional rhetoric of people who either can’t or won’t look at the hard, cold numbers, UAB did the right thing in killing its football program. A fine university will be stronger without this money-losing albatross.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts