NWA editorial: Bringing home the bacon

UA athletics can afford expansion of stadium

An artist's rendering shows what a proposed expansion to Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium in Fayetteville might look like. The UA athletics department estimates the project would add about 4,800 seats and cost $160 million.
An artist's rendering shows what a proposed expansion to Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium in Fayetteville might look like. The UA athletics department estimates the project would add about 4,800 seats and cost $160 million.

When it comes to college athletics programs, the vast majority of universities pay to play.

In a 2015 report, USA Today found 24 of 230 public schools in the NCAA's Division I are financially independent, i.e., they bring in more revenue than they spend. Arkansas was No. 16, with eight other SEC schools having higher revenue. Half of those schools, according to the news organization, still receive some form of subsidy, but the University of Arkansas' program sends money back to the academic side of the ledger.

What’s the point?

University of Arkansas trustee David Pryor has done a service in asking serious questions about expansion of Razorback Stadium, but hasn’t made a case to deny the UA’s plans.

In short, for the Hogs, it pays to play, and to keep up with the demands of the sports-attending public.

That fact provides the strongest foundation for the Razorbacks athletic department's goal to launch a $160 million renovation and expansion of Razorback Stadium and a rebuilding of the Broyles Complex that now anchors the facility's north end zone. Many collegiate athletic programs simply don't have the financial strength to dive into long-term debt of that magnitude.

The University of Arkansas' robust financial picture in regard to athletics gives it an ability to be aggressive in its facilities-based play calling, and Athletics Director Jeff Long is ready for a drive to connect with more seat- and suite-buying fans. He will in the not-so-distant future ask the UA System board of trustees for authority to move ahead on the stadium expansion.

It turns out one of the plan's biggest obstacles is a soft-spoken, 81-year-old man. But not just any man. This is David Pryor, former state legislator, governor and U.S. senator who is now a member of the UA board. Pryor recently put Long and the UA's new chancellor, Joe Steinmetz, to work responding to a list of more than 30 questions about the stadium expansion's financial and construction details. In sum, the questions boiled down to "why" and "how."

In an April 21 letter, Steinmetz provided answers (see "Letter from Chancellor Steinmetz to Sen. Pryor" at http://www.nwaonline.com/documents).

"We believe that this project is not only important for the future of the University of Arkansas," Steinmetz explained, "but also for the continued economic and cultural growth of our state."

That's big talk for costly project that will add less than 4,000 seats to the stadium, but UA administrators say it's not the quantity of seats, but the quality. Many of the added seats in an enclosed north end zone of the stadium will be the suites, club and loge seating that's proven popular and lucrative for the University of Arkansas. Athletic department officials want to pair the addition of those seats with a new Broyles Complex and other renovations/additions around the stadium that they say will improve the "game day experience" for all fans.

Pryor has been the plan's biggest skeptic, and even after getting answers to his questions, says he anticipates being the sole vote against the project.

"I think we have higher priorities than a football stadium, and it's not to benefit students," Pryor said. "I just do not think this is the right time to do it."

The retired senator, however, hasn't made his case convincingly, despite all his experience debating far more significant issues in the halls of the U.S. Senate.

The stadium project will provide revenues to maintain the self-supporting financial model for Razorback athletics as well as vital additional support for the continued investment in academic and other related programs benefiting all students at the University of Arkansas.

Pryor's concerns might resonate if the UA was like most schools, relying on student fees and other university subsidies to keep it athletics program going. But it's not. It's among the few in the nation that produce more money than it spends. Of the $160 million planned for the stadium project, about $40 million is set to be raised from donors, while about $120 million will come from issuance of bonds anticipated to paid back over the next 20 or so years through ticket and other revenue.

The money isn't being pried out of people's wallets. It's either being donated or paid through ticket purchases, TV revenue and other sources of funding generated by the athletic department's activities. Unless we've missed something, attending a Razorbacks football game or other sport is most certainly the epitome of disposable income. The Razorbacks have over the years proven capable of "selling" its athletic endeavors to fans, even when the win-loss records might suggest otherwise. As long as the proposed revenue comes from the athletics department's success, what's the point of opposing it?

As we noted in a previous editorial, Pryor deserves commendation for standing up to be counted. He's the only UA board member making a serious effort to force UA administrators to justify their plans. As one of the most beloved political figures in Arkansas history, he's uniquely positioned to stand firm against the UA, which is used to being the most influential force in any discussion.

Pryor has done a great job. It has helped to hear administrators articulate the plan for the stadium. But Pryor has not made a convincing and clear case as to why the stadium expansion would be harmful.

Without a question, the UA board's priority should be making sure no public tax revenue and no student fee money is used to pay for a stadium expansion. As for donations, well, it's up to donors to decide whether they want to put their money toward it. Donors, ticket buyers, suite lessors and other boosters of the program can always make their own decisions whether to support the teams and the program. There appears to be no shortage of support for the Hogs.

Commentary on 05/03/2016

Upcoming Events