Why Clemson’s Students Wouldn’t Pay For Sports – Wall Street Journal

A peek at the balance sheet of Clemson’s athletic department is all it takes to see the school is sitting on an untapped source of revenue: its students.

Clemson, like most schools, brings in more money than ever from athletics. But even its record $74 million of reported athletic revenue last year was below average compared with other universities in the increasingly rich world of big-time college sports.

That’s why Clemson went searching for more. The school didn’t have to flip sofa cushions for spare change. It turned out there was a already a gold mine on campus.

Clemson was the only public university in the Atlantic Coast Conference last year—and one of a dwindling number across the country—not charging a specific student fee for the athletic department. Introducing one seemed like an easy way to make a lot of money. Each undergraduate paying up to $350 may not sound like much, but eventually it would have brought in $6 million per year.

Then something unusual happened. Months of talks about a potential sports fee broke down after many Clemson students asked a question that often goes overlooked when it comes to the infusion of cash in college sports: Why?

“We told them point blank that we didn’t see any need for students to pay the fee,” said Maddy Thompson, the president of Clemson’s student government at the time.

Their opposition set off a series of events last school year that ended with Clemson’s athletic department quietly backing away from the idea of a student fee. School officials said this week that the concept has been tabled, but there is a possibility they could ask students for future funds.

Clemson doesn’t seem to be suffering. The Tigers play for the national championship Monday after finishing the regular season as the nation’s No. 1 team. The only thing between Clemson and its first title since 1981 is Alabama—a school with annual sports revenues that are twice the size of Clemson’s.

Clemson’s surprise season comes after extensive conversations last year about the fee. It was discussed with the student government for months before it was presented last October to the school’s athletic advisory council.

But it was never proposed to Clemson’s board of trustees for ultimate approval because it was clear that the overwhelming majority of students were against it. One survey conducted by the student government put the opposition at 85%.

“Based on their input, the decision was made not to go forward,” a university spokeswoman said.

Clemson’s administrators say they weren’t surprised that cash-strapped college students rejected paying for something they weren’t convinced was needed. But they were taken aback for another reason: Those students wouldn’t have been the ones footing the bill.

As it was discussed, the student fee wouldn’t have been included in tuition for the roughly 17,000 undergraduates in school at the time. Those students would have been grandfathered into not paying the extra cost. Athletic officials said the additional $350 would have been levied only on incoming students who weren’t yet in college—and Clemson’s student government still shot it down.

“I think they were looking out for their cousins, brothers and sisters—people who they know and are looking to come to Clemson,” said athletic director Dan Radakovich.

Clemson seems like an odd school for this sort of mutiny against mushrooming sports costs. It spends less on athletics than several ACC schools and much less than almost every Southeastern Conference university.

Even the people who were vocal in their objections say they’re huge sports fans. Thompson, the former student-body president, comes from a Clemson family and plans to fly across the country for Monday’s game. “Everyone loves the university and loves athletics,” she said. “But you can love something and be infuriated with one aspect of it.”

The students objected by asking why their money was necessary when there is so much other revenue being pumped into college sports. Clemson has benefited as much as any ACC school by that money explosion. In the last fiscal year, the league’s new television deal pushed Clemson’s conference payout to $21.3 million, more than any other member’s share, according to federal tax filings. Since then, the school has broken ground on a privately funded $55 million football building, complete with all the elements of a college athlete’s Xanadu: a bowling alley, indoor slide and an area for playing laser tag.

To help pay for rising athletic costs, many schools lean on students who don’t play sports. Student subsidies have brought in more than $10 billion over the last five years, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, while revenue from student fees at other ACC public schools range from $1.9 million to $13.2 million.

Clemson and Alabama, who square off in Monday’s championship game, are the rare exceptions. Clemson is more unusual still: It doesn’t charge students for tickets to football games.

Radakovich initiated conversations about the student fee, he said, because of what he called the increasing costs of business in college sports, such as higher prices for insurance, travel and medical expenses. He was planning for the future, he said, since it would have taken four more years for Clemson to hit that $6 million mark. “We have more revenue coming in, and we have more expenses going out,” Radakovich said.

The potential student fee was brought up at a time when students are unusually aware of how much debt they’re accruing. Worse, Clemson lost three games last year, and some on campus feel the debate may have ended differently if it had occurred in an undefeated season. “I think if they would’ve done it this year, they wouldn’t have had as much resistance,” said Bert McCarty, the chairman of Clemson’s athletic council.

Clemson’s officials are now considering another option. While there haven’t been discussions about student fees, the school says it may charge for student tickets. Radakovich said those conversations are still in the early stages and there haven’t been any proposals yet. After last year’s opposition, though, he said it’s critical to “continue to have dialogue” with students about contributing to the athletic department’s bottom line.

“I don’t know that the need has changed,” he said.

Write to Ben Cohen at ben.cohen@wsj.com