Academic Research on Athletics Donors
Last week I found a handful of academic research articles that reported on intercollegiate athletics development and the many factors that accompany fundraising success. One article in particular, Scoreboards vs. Mortarboards: Major Donor Behavior and Intercollegiate Athletics, proposed a few questions that I thought were worth discussing on this site. The following is a review of the questions posed and brief description of their results (the university studied for this article was the University of Oregon, between 1994-2002). For the complete research article by Jeffrey Stinson and Dennis Howard, check out Volume 13 of the Sport Marketing Journal from 2004, pages 129-140.
Who gives to educational institutions in support of academic and athletics programs?
The research conducted for this study supports the notion that non-alumni donors contribute more to intercollegiate athletics, while alumni donors usually donate more towards academic programs. However, “although alumni donors do give more to academics, they also donate large amounts, both in terms of average gift amount and percent of total gift, to intercollegiate athletics.”
Does winning have a significant impact on giving?
For athletics, yes. In this instance (University of Oregon between 1994-2002) the success of the schools major sports programs had a direct correlation with an increase in Athletics giving. During this time the average donation of major gifts (above $1000) increased by an average of over $720. However, the increase in giving to academic programs by alumni was not as strong, suggesting that athletic success did not necessarily mean larger academic giving.
Does an increase in athletics giving lead to a decrease in academic giving at the same institution?
The findings in this research suggest that increased athletic success may have the following results: “some alumni are reducing or eliminating gifts to academics while increasing gifts to athletics…and new alumni donors are making more gifts to athletics than academics.”
Stinson and Howard provide some causes for their findings, such as tangible benefits. Better parking at games or an improved seat location may lead a donor to switch their giving from academics to athletics. Also, it is speculated that donors, when giving to athletics, feel they are supporting the athletes in an academic sense as well, thus leaving them with the thought that they are “getting the best of both worlds” with only one donation.
While it is notable that winning increases donations, I feel that the real value provided in this article is the motivation behind some alumni donors. The article suggests that alumni donors will be persuaded to donate to athletics if they feel their donation will have a positive impact both on athletics and academics in the department. Development officers can look at their presentation to prospects (especially alumni), and emphasize academics to attract new donors.