TABLE OF CONTENTS. I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Importance of Athletics for Women 1 B. Legal Background 2 C. This Study 4

Transcription

1

2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Importance of Athletics for Women 1 B. Legal Background 2 C. This Study 4 II. STATEWIDE DATA 6 A. Athletic Opportunities 6 B. Athletic Expenditures 8 1. Total Expenses 8 2. Operating Expenses Athletics-Related Student Aid Recruiting Expenditures 13 C. Coaching Resources 14 III. ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION/DIVISION SPLITS 17 IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 23 A. The Bad is failing to provide proportionate opportunities for female athletes s funding disparities for women s athletics are shameful Male coaches, who predominate over female coaches for both men s and women s sports, earn more money than female coaches Some of s largest schools are not providing proportionate athletic opportunities for women Several of s schools are failing to provide proportionate scholarships for female athletes. 27 B. The Good Per athlete scholarship expenditure favors female athletes Some overall trends within conferences or athletic associations show improvement for female athletes Some individual schools are doing an excellent job with gender equity. 29 i

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) C. The Future Schools Students Others 31 Endnotes 32 Appendix A: Individual School Data Appendix A Appendix B: School Affiliation Appendix B ii

5 CHARTS Chart 1: Full-Time Undergraduate Enrollment 6 Chart 2: Athletic Opportunities 7 Chart 3: Proportion of Full-Time Enrollment by Sex 8 Chart 4: Proportion of Athletic Opportunities by Sex 8 Chart 5: Athletic Expenditures by Sex 9 Chart 6: Proportionate Breakdown of Sex-Allocated Athletic Budgets 9 Chart 7: Athletic Expenditures per Athletic Position 10 Chart 8: Athletic Expenditures per Student 11 Chart 9: Operating Expenses 12 Chart 10: Scholarship Dollars 13 Chart 11: Recruiting Dollars 13 Chart 12: Proportionate Allocation of Each Recruiting Dollar per Student 14 Chart 13: Coaching Expenses 15 Chart 14: Average Coach Salaries 16 Chart 15: Athletic Equity Difference by Athletic Association 17 Chart 16: Athletic Equity Difference by NCAA Division 19 Chart 17: Per Athletic Position Total Spending 19 Chart 18: Three-Year Average NCAA Divisional Spending per Athlete 20 Chart 19: NCAA Versus Non-NCAA per Athlete Expenditures 21 Chart 20: s Worst Large Schools for Athletic Equity in Opportunities 26 Chart 21: s Worst Schools for Proportionate Scholarship Distribution 27 Chart 22: s Best Large Schools for Athletic Equity in Opportunities 29 iii

6 GENDER EQUITY IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS: WHERE DOES PENNSYLVANIA STAND? I. INTRODUCTION Title IX became law in 1972, and intercollegiate athletics have not been the same since. In the year before the law was enacted, just under 30,000 women participated in intercollegiate athletics in the United States compared with slightly more than 170,000 men, almost six times the number of women. 1 Over thirty years later, in the academic year, the gap had closed significantly, with roughly 163,000 women participating in intercollegiate athletics compared with 217,000 men. 2 The federal mandate for gender equity in athletics has clearly produced significant gains. However, much remains to be done. Women constitute roughly 54% of the nationwide undergraduate population, 3 but only have available to them 43% of the athletic opportunities on college campuses. 4 Significant monetary disparities exist as well, with female college athletes having less money spent on their overall operating budgets as well as receiving far less than male athletes in scholarship and recruiting dollars. 5 s experience with Title IX and gender equity in college athletics has been fraught with high-profile landmark court cases, 6 coaches and teams taking the national stage to oppose Title IX, 7 and university presidents speaking in favor of Title IX s strict opportunityequity requirements. 8 But to date there has been no study of the state of gender equity in the athletics programs of the over-one-hundred colleges in. This Report aims to fill that gap. A. IMPORTANCE OF ATHLETICS FOR WOMEN Understanding the extent to which colleges have attempted to reach gender equity in athletics programs is an important undertaking. Besides documenting whether the state s institutions of higher learning are acting non-discriminatorily in their distribution of athletic opportunities and benefits, this Report will ultimately document the 1

7 extent that schools are contributing positively to the overall health and well-being of the young women they educate. A recent study from the Women s Sports Foundation compiled all of the research into the effects that sports have on girls and women s lives. Increasing the amount of physical activity for girls and women lowers their risk for heart disease, cancer, obesity, osteoporosis, and Alzheimer s disease. Participation in athletics decreases the likelihood of high-risk behavior such as smoking, illicit drug use, a variety of sexual risk behaviors, and unintended pregnancies. Physical activity for women is also associated with lower rates of depression and suicidal behavior and increased global self-esteem. Female student-athletes have better academic success, including in science and mathematics, two stereotypically male-dominated subjects. 9 This Report on the state of athletics equity in intercollegiate athletic programs shows that, simply because of the sheer number of schools in the state, is indeed providing a substantial number of opportunities to female athletes; however, s colleges and universities are not providing those opportunities proportionate to the number of female undergraduates in the state or with the same level of financial support given to male athletes. Because of these problems, s colleges and universities, despite advances made in the wake of Title IX, continue to treat female athletes unfairly and are ultimately failing to give their female students all of the benefits that athletics provide. B. L E G A L B A C K G R O U N D Title IX is the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in educational programs that receive federal funds. has a general law prohibiting many kinds of discrimination in education, 10 and its constitution includes an equal rights amendment. 11 Because Title IX has more specificity in its coverage of and a long history of application to schools in relation to athletics, this legal summary focuses on Title IX s requirements with respect to athletics and gender equity. Title IX s relevant language states: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 12 Enacted in itle IX T compliance is measured in three areas of athletics: Equitable provision of athletic opportunity Equal distribution of scholarship money Equal treatment throughout athletic programs 2

8 1972, the law as originally understood applied to athletic programs as well as any other program within the educational institution receiving federal funds. 13 In 1979, the federal government issued a policy interpretation to aid schools compliance with Title IX s regulations as they applied to athletic programs. The federal agency charged with enforcing Title IX (then the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; now the Department of Education s Office of Civil Rights) described what has since been referred to as the three-part test that is the measure of whether a school has provided equal athletic opportunity to male and female students: 1. Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or 2. Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the members of that sex; or 3. Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a history and continuing practice of program expansion, as described above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program. 14 Under this three-part test, a school can comply with Title IX s athletic participation requirements by showing that it meets any one of these criteria. Title IX also requires that schools equitably distribute scholarship money to athletes. This requirement specifies that the percentage of athletic scholarship money given to female athletes is roughly proportionate to the percentage of athletes at the school who are female. 15 The Office of Civil Rights has interpreted this requirement in the past to require that 3

9 the percentage of money given to female athletes be within one percent (or one scholarship) of the percentage of female athletes participating in the school s athletics program. 16 Title IX also includes a general requirement that schools treat men and women equally throughout their athletic programs. 17 This requirement does not mandate that there be one-to-one equality in every aspect of athletic programs, but rather that men s and women s teams receive the same qualitative treatment from the school in all areas of athletics, such as equipment and supplies, scheduling of games and practice, travel and per diem expenses, opportunities to receive quality coaching and academic assistance, locker rooms and facilities, trainer services, housing and dining services, and publicity. 18 Overall athletic expenditures, although not required to be exactly equal for men s and women s athletics, are a good indicator of the qualitative treatment of the different programs. C. THIS STUDY This study aims to answer a question other studies have not analyzed: how one particular state s colleges and universities are treating women s athletics. 19 This study focuses on by looking at athletics data over the course of the three most recently reported school years: , , and The study looks at the publicly available numbers detailing athletic participation, operating budgets, coaching numbers, scholarship amounts, and recruitment dollars. Most of the information contained in the study comes from individual school reports that are available on the U.S. Department of Education s Office of Post-Secondary Education Equity in Athletics Disclosure Website. Since 1994, this information has been publicly available as a result of the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act. 20 However, before the information was available on the internet, all that was required of schools was to make the information available to anyone who inquires of the school. Now, the Department of Education s website is searchable for individual school data based on name, size, location, and other factors. 21 The only data in this study that comes from another source is full-time undergraduate enrollment data. For the first two years of this study, fulltime undergraduate enrollment data was obtained from the Department of Education s National Center for Education Statistics website. 22 For the 4

10 third year of this study, the information was obtained from the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act website, which contained that information for the first time. Data from the small number of schools not reporting under the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act was not included in this study. 23 5

11 II. STATEWIDE DATA There were 112 schools in that reported data for all three years in this study. 24 In those 112 schools, over the course of the three years studied, the total full-time student population increased from roughly 335,000 to about 355,000. Full-time enrollment for both men and women increased over the course of the three years, but women s enrollment increased slightly more, resulting in a slowly increasing proportion of female full-time undergraduates compared to male fulltime undergraduates (for women, from 53.31% in to 53.39% in to 53.41% in ). CHART 1: FULL-TIME UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT ACADEMIC YEAR MEN WOMEN TOTAL ,487 (46.69%) ,476 (46.61%) ,540 (46.59%) 178,690 (53.31%) 184,966 (53.39%) 189,804 (53.41%) 335, , ,344 A. ATHLETIC OPPORTUNITIES The vastly greater enrollment of women in s undergraduate institutions does not correspond with a higher number or proportion of athletic opportunities for women. In each of the three years studied in this report, there were roughly 5,000 more athletic opportunities for men at s undergraduate institutions than for women. In , s undergraduate institutions had 20,084 athletic positions for men compared with 15,331 for women. A year later, s undergraduate institutions had slightly increased the number of opportunities for men to 20,154 (increase of 0.3%) while decreasing the number for women to 15,129 (decrease of 1.3%). In , men s opportunities continued to increase (to 20,372, an increase of 1%), and women s opportunities struggled to get back to numbers (15,301, an increase of 1.1% from ). Overall, over the course of the three years studied, men s athletic opportunities increased by 1.4% while women s athletic opportunities decreased 0.2%. In each of the three years studied in this report, there were roughly 5,000 more athletic opportunities for men at s undergraduate institutions than for women. 6

12 CHART 2: ATHLETIC OPPORTUNITIES ACADEMIC YEAR MEN WOMEN TOTAL ,084 (56.7%) ,154 (57.1%) ,372 (57.1%) 15,331 (43.3%) 15,129 (42.9%) 15,301 (42.9%) 35,414 35,283 35,673 The disparity in numbers is reflected not only in the gross numbers but also in the proportion of female athletic opportunities compared to the proportion of male athletic opportunities. Men had available to them 56.7% of the inter-collegiate athletic positions in in whereas women had available to them only 43.3%. Men s share of athletic positions increased in , when they had available to them 57.1% of the athletic positions compared to women having available to them only 42.9% (a 0.4% increase for men and 0.4% decrease for women). In , the proportion of athletic positions for men and women remained the same as in These numbers indicate that, as a collective whole, s undergraduate institutions are failing miserably in providing proportionate athletic opportunity for women, the benchmark standard for athletic participation equality under Title IX s three-part test. Furthermore, over the course of the three years studied here, s undergraduate institutions show a pattern of decreasing athletic opportunities for women in relation to men s athletic opportunities. Based on the numbers collected in this study, the difference in the proportion of athletic positions available to women and the proportion of women enrolled in colleges in was 10.0% (53.3% of full-time enrolled undergraduates; 43.3% of available athletic opportunities); in , the difference was worse, 10.5% (53.4% of fulltime enrolled undergraduates; 42.9% of available athletic opportunities); and in , the difference was essentially the same as , 10.5% (53.4% of full-time enrolled undergraduates; 42.9% of available athletic opportunities). To have offered proportionate athletic opportunities to women in , schools needed to provide an additional 8,057 positions for women. 7

13 CHART 3: PROPORTION OF FULL-TIME ENROLLMENT BY SEX CHART 4: PROPORTION OF ATHLETIC OPPORTUNITIES BY SEX Three Year Average Three Year Average Women 53.4% Women 43.0% Men 46.6% Men 57.0% The number of missing opportunities for women these percentages reflect is staggering. To have offered proportionate athletic opportunities to women, schools needed to provide another 7,603 positions for women in , 7,957 in , and 8,057 in if they kept the number of male athletic positions constant. If the number of male athletic positions is the standard, then huge numbers of potential female collegiate athletes are being shortchanged in. 25 B. ATHLETIC EXPENDITURES 1. TOTAL EXPENSES s colleges spend an increasingly large amount of money on athletics. In , the total was $234 million; by , the total had increased by over 40% to $329 million. Of this total amount spent, only about 70-75% (depending on the year) is allocated by sex. Breaking down the amount of money allocated by sex reveals an inequitable distribution of resources. s colleges spent $111 million on men s athletics in , $128 million in , and $142 million in Total expenditures on women s athletics were drastically lower than expenditures on men s athletics, although the women s total has slowly increased in relation to the men s total over the past three years: $66 million in (59% of men s); $76 million in (60% of men s); and $88 million in (62% of men s). Total expenditures on women s athletics have been drastically lower than expenditures on men s athletics. 8

14 CHART 5: ATHLETIC EXPENDITURES BY SEX ACADEMIC YEAR MEN WOMEN TOTAL* $111,362,580 $66,101,420 $234,173, $128,006,703 $76,431,596 $285,264, $141,807,291 $87,963,111 $328,922,834 *Total is greater than sum of expenditures on men and women because of expenditures unallocated by sex. Separating the two major men s sports, basketball and football, from the sex-allocated athletic budgets reveals that schools allocate a huge proportion of their athletic budget to those two sports at the expense of other men s sports as well as all women s sports. In all three years studied, about 41% of schools sex-allocated athletic budgets went to football (27-28%) and men s basketball (13-14%) whereas 21% went to all other men s sports and about 38% went to all women s sports. Of the men s athletic budget in all three years, 66% of athletic funds go to those two sports leaving only 34% of funds for all other men s sports. This comparison is even starker considering that fewer than half of the schools in this study had a football program. In all three years studied, about 41% of schools sexallocated athletic budgets went to football and men s basketball. CHART 6: PROPORTIONATE BREAKDOWN OF SEX-ALLOCATED ATHLETIC BUDGETS Other Men's Sports 21% Women's Sports 37% Men's Basketball 14% Football 28% The disparity is also evident when comparing expenses per individual athletic position. Female athletes received over $1,230 less per athletic position in than male athletes did ($4,312 per athletic position for 9

15 women compared to $5,545 per athletic position for men). In , the difference jumped to just under $1,300 less per female athletic position than for male athletic positions ($5,052 per athletic position for women compared to $6,351 per athletic position for men). In , the difference was more in line with , with a difference of about $1,210 ($5,749 per athletic position for women compared to $6,961 per athletic position for men). Overall, colleges averaged spending about $1,250 more per male athlete than per female athlete. The football budget more than accounts for this disparity. In , the schools with football spent an average of $11,418 per player. Removing that money from the overall sex-allocated athletic budget shows that schools spent only $3,894 per athletic position for other men s sports, over $400 less than schools spent per athletic position for women s sports. In , the football budget increased to $11,765 per player. Without football, schools spent only $4,652 per men s position, again $400 less than they spent per women s position. In , schools spent $12,440 per football player. Removing that money from the overall budget, schools spent only $5,228 per position on other men s sports, over $500 less than schools spent per position on women s sports. colleges averaged spending about $1,250 more per male athlete than per female athlete. CHART 7: ATHLETIC EXPENDITURES PER ATHLETIC POSITION ACADEMIC YEAR MEN FOOTBALL MEN (without Football) WOMEN $5,545 $11,418 $3,894 $4, $6,351 $11,765 $4,652 $5, $6,961 $12,440 $5,228 $5,749 The disproportion is even starker when athletic dollars are broken down per student (as opposed to per athletic position). A school that had roughly equal athletic expenditures for male and female students would be fulfilling its general mandate to treat men and women equally because the proportion of male and female athletes is supposed to mirror the general population at the school; thus, an equitable distribution of athletic dollars should mirror the population of the school as well as the athletic population. However, as a whole is falling woefully short of spending proportionately per student. In fact, s schools spent just less than twice as much on athletics per male student as they 10

16 CHART 8: ATHLETIC EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT ACADEMIC YEAR MEN WOMEN $712 $ $793 $ $857 $463 did per female student in all three years studied: $712 per male student in and $370 per female student; $793 per male student in and $413 per female student; $857 per male student in and $463 per female student. The data may suggest some good news, though, as the difference decreased in the three years studied, albeit not significantly: from 92% more per male student in to 85% more per male student in OPERATING EXPENSES The equity problems with total expenses are mirrored in the differences in operating expenses schools spend on men s and women s sports. As opposed to total expenses which include every dollar spent on athletics, operating expenses only include the institutional expenditures for lodging, meals, transportation, officials, uniforms, and equipment for both home and away games. 26 In , schools spent $28.5 million on men s athletics operating expenses as opposed to $20.3 million on women s athletics. In , schools spent a million dollars less on men s athletics operating expenses ($27.5 million) than they had the year before and over two million dollars less on women s athletics ($18.0 million) than the year before. In , the schools increased their operating expense budgets to $31.9 million for men and $19.6 million for women. The per athletic position discrepancy grew in the three years studied: from an almost $100 difference per athletic position in ($1,424 per male athletic position compared to $1,327 per female athletic position), to a $170 difference per position in ($1,363 compared to $1,192), to a much larger $300 difference per position in ($1,564 compared to $1,284). The per athletic position discrepancy in operating expenses grew in the three years studied: from an almost $100 difference per athletic position in to a much larger $300 difference per position in

17 CHART 9: OPERATING EXPENSES ACADEMIC YEAR TOTAL FOR MEN TOTAL FOR WOMEN PER MALE ATHLETIC POSITION PER FEMALE ATHLETIC POSITION $28,589,896 $20,343,328 $1,424 $1, $27,464,243 $18,033,766 $1,363 $1, $31,854,074 $19,638,949 $1,564 $1,284 On a per student comparison, the disparity between men s and women s operating expenses grew increasingly stark over the three years studied: in , 61% more per male student than per female student ($183 compared to $114); in , 73% more per male student than per female student ($170 compared to $98); and in , 86% more per male student than per female student ($192 compared to $103). 3. ATHLETICS-RELATED STUDENT AID Scholarship expenditures present a mixed picture. Overall, schools spend much more on scholarships for male athletes than they spend on scholar-ships for female athletes. In , just over $35 million was spent on scholarships for male athletes compared to just over $28 million for female athletes. However, as stated earlier, the Title IX measure is not overall expenditures but rather proportionality between the percentage of athletic scholarship money given to individual female athletes and the percentage of athletes at the school who are female. On a per athlete 27 basis, these numbers amount to more being spent on female athletes than on male: $4,339 per male athlete compared to $4,571 per female athlete. 28 The same pattern existed in : $39.5 million was spent on scholarships for male athletes compared to just under $33 million on scholarships for female athletes. The per athlete comparison skewed even more in favor of female athletes: $4,711 per male athlete compared to $5,097 per female athlete showed another increase in scholarship money with similar splits: $43.4 million for men and $36.4 million for women. This breakdown resulted in $5,322 in scholarship money per male athlete and $5,784 per female athlete. Overall, schools spend much more on scholarships for male athletes than they spend on scholarships for female athletes. However, on a per athlete basis, because there are so many fewer female athletes than male athletes in, these numbers amount to more being spent per individual female athlete. 12

18 CHART 10: SCHOLARSHIP DOLLARS ACADEMIC YEAR TOTAL FOR MEN TOTAL FOR WOMEN PER MALE ATHLETE PER FEMALE ATHLETE $35,196,391 $28,099,831 $4,399 $4, $39,596,597 $32,955,056 $4,711 $5, $43,401,655 $36,441,191 $5,322 $5,784 While individual female athletes received somewhat larger scholarships than individual males, there were so many more scholarships given to men than to women that a comparison of scholarship spending to overall student enrollment shows that schools have allocated more athletic scholarship dollars per male student than female student. 29 In , schools spent $376 per male student on men s athletic scholarships but only $257 per female student on women s athletic scholarships; in , the respective numbers were $393 per male student and $279 per female student; and in , the numbers were $425 per male student and only $304 per female student. 4. RECRUITING EXPENDITURES The worst discrepancy from the data is in the spending on recruitment. In each year, schools spent roughly twice as much money on recruiting male athletes as on female athletes: $3.3 million in on male athletes compared to $1.7 million on female athletes; $3.5 million in on male athletes compared to $1.8 million on female athletes; $4.0 million in on male athletes compared to $2.0 million on female athletes. On a per athlete basis, in each of the three years studied, schools spent about 45% more to recruit men as compared to women: in , $205 on recruiting per male athlete as opposed to $140 per female athlete; in , $210 per male athlete compared to $146 per female athlete; and in , $243 per male athlete compared to $167 per female athlete. 30 CHART 11: RECRUITING DOLLARS ACADEMIC YEAR TOTAL FOR MEN TOTAL FOR WOMEN PER MALE ATHLETE PER FEMALE ATHLETE $3,278,301 $1,690,882 $205 $ $3,454,660 $1,798,921 $210 $ $3,986,460 $1,985,395 $243 $167 13

19 What is most revealing, however, is the per student split for recruiting dollars. Recruiting dollars are intended, by definition, to persuade potential athletes to come to a particular school and play sports for that school. Thus, comparing recruiting dollars to the entire student population is most instructive because it shows the extent to which schools are trying to enroll athletes in proportion with student enrollment by sex. By this measure, recruiting spending is incredibly disproportionate: for the first two years studied, schools spent about $25.25 per male student and only $11.20 per female student; in , schools spent $27.16 per male student and only $11.57 per female student on recruiting. In other words, undergraduate institutions spent about two and a quarter times as much per student to persuade men to come to their school to play sports than they spent trying to persuade women to do the same. On a per student basis, undergraduate institutions spent about two and a quarter times as much per student to persuade men to come to their school to play sports than they spent trying to persuade women to do the same. CHART 12: PORTIONATE ALLOCATION OF EACH RECRUITING DOLLAR PER STUDENT Women 30% Men 70% C. C O A C H I N G R E S O U R C E S The annual reports also detail information about coaching resources. Like the other monetary measures described above, the amount schools pay their coaches disproportionately advantages male athletes. Overall, schools spent $36.2 million on coaching men s sports in , $37.2 million in , and $43.8 million in In comparison, schools spent $22.7 million for coaches of women s sports in , $25.4 million in , and $27.8 million in Thus, each year schools spent roughly 50% more on coaching men s sports than coaching women s sports. 14

20 Broken down further, the coaching budget reflects even more disparities. In , schools spent $1,801 per male athletic position compared to $1,483 per female athletic position. In , the gap narrowed a bit, but still amounted to almost a $200 difference: $1,848 per male athletic position compared to $1,676 per female athletic position. In , the gap widened beyond the gap of : $2,148 per male athletic position compared to $1,816 per female athletic position. When broken down by the amount spent per student on coaches salaries, schools spent $231 per male student on men s athletics coaches in both and and $264 in but only $127 per female student in , $137 per female student in , and $146 per female student in schools spent roughly 50% more on coaching men s sports than coaching women s sports. CHART 13: COACHING EXPENSES ACADEMIC YEAR TOTAL FOR MEN TOTAL FOR WOMEN PER MALE ATHLETIC POSITION PER FEMALE ATHLETIC POSITION $19,870,063 $15,653,232 $1,801 $1, $20,353,700 $17,234,055 $1,848 $1, $24,417,746 $19,759,980 $2,148 $1,816 Average salaries for coaches favored those who coached men s sports. In , there were 746 head coaches of men s intercollegiate sports in, and they earned an average of $26,635. The 782 head coaches of women s sports earned an average of $20,017, which equates to 75 cents for every dollar earned by the head coaches of men s sports. The average salary differential narrowed in In that year, the 759 head coaches of men s sports earned an average of $27,495 whereas the 786 head coaches of women s sports earned an average of $22,426. The women s head coaches earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by the men s head coaches that year. In , the differential widened to 79 cents for every dollar earned by the head coaches of men s sports. In that year, the 776 men s head coaches earned an average of $31,466 whereas the 794 women s head coaches earned an average of $24,887. Men s head coaches earned an average of $6,100 more than women s head coaches. Men s assistant coaches earned an average of $5,725 more than women s assistant coaches. The salaries for assistant coaches present an even bleaker picture. In , the 1,200 men s assistant coaches earned an average of $13,591 whereas the 886 women s assistant coaches earned an average of $7,996. In , the 1,251 men s assistant head coaches earned an average of 15

21 $13,960, but the 914 women s assistant coaches earned only an average of $9,128. And, in , the 1,289 men s assistant coaches earned an average of $15,003 with the 973 women s assistant coaches averaging only $8,249. The salary differential for women s coaches started at 59 cents for every dollar earned by men s head coaches in , rose to 65 cents in , and then fell to 55 cents in CHART 14: AVERAGE COACH SALARIES ACADEMIC YEAR MEN S HEAD COACH WOMEN S HEAD COACH MEN S ASSISTANT COACH WOMEN S ASSISTANT COACH $26,635 $20,017 $13,591 $7, $27,495 $22,426 $13,960 $9, $31,466 $24,887 $15,003 $8,249 Breaking down the coaching staff by gender also reflects sex-based inequities, as there are many more men coaching sports in than women. In all three years studied, only 5% of the coaches of men s teams were women, which means that 95% of the higher paying jobs of coaching men s sports went to men. A much higher percentage of coaches of women s teams were women, about 49%, but men still outnumbered women in that area. Overall, only about 25% of coaches of college teams were women. In only one coaching-related area recorded in the Equity in Athletics reports do schools treat female athletes better than male athletes: the athlete-to-coach ratio. In all three years studied, schools had a lower athlete-to-coach ratio for women s sports than men s sports. In both and , there were roughly 8.35 female athletes for every coach (both head and assistant) compared to 9.25 male athletes for every coach. In , the number of overall coaches increased compared to the number of athletes, resulting in 7.83 female athletes for every coach compared to 8.95 male athletes. This difference reflects that, although being given fewer athletic opportunities and resources overall, female athletes in s undergraduate athletic programs potentially receive more instructional attention than male athletes. Only 5% of the coaches of men s teams were women, which means that 95% of the higher paying jobs of coaching men s sports went to men. 16

22 III. ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION/DIVISION SPLITS undergraduate institutions compete in several different athletic associations and conferences. 31 The most well-known athletic association is the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Other, less well-known athletic associations with participating schools in are the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA), the National Christian College Athletic Association (NCCAA), and the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA). also has eighteen schools that participate in intercollegiate athletics but are not associated with any of these national associations. A complete list of school affiliation is included in Appendix B of this report. In , the schools not associated with an athletic conference or association had the best record for proportionate athletic opportunities for women, although that record still left much to be desired. At these schools, the overall difference between the percentage of women enrolled and the percentage of women s athletic positions (referred to as the school s athletic equity difference ) was 9.1% in The difference for the schools in the other categories was generally much worse: NCAA (10.1%), NJCAA (16.9%), NAIA (19.4%), NCCAA (24.1%). In both of the following years, the order shifted, with the two schools in the NCCAA, Lancaster Bible College and Valley Forge Christian College, making a big move toward proportionality and the unassociated schools moving toward greater disproportionality. For and , the order of proportionality was as follows: NCCAA (8.9% in and 4.0% in ); NCAA (10.5% and 10.6%); schools not in a national athletic association (13.7% and 12.9%); NAIA (16.3% and 14.9%); and NJCAA (20.0% and 19.1%). Within the NCAA, schools had athletic equity differences of 10.1% to 10.6%, reflecting approximately 7,200 missing athletic opportunities for women. CHART 15: ATHLETIC EQUITY DIFFERENCE BY ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 25% 20% % 10% 5% 0% NCAA NAIA NJCAA NCCAA Others 17

23 Within the NCAA, the nation s highest profile athletic association and one of s best athletic associations with respect to proportionate athletic opportunity, schools had athletic equity differences of 10.1% to 10.6%, reflecting a huge gap in athletic opportunity for women who attend these prestigious schools. The difference reflects approximately 7200 missing athletic opportunities for women if the number of male opportunities are held constant or about 3,300 if the number of overall athletic opportunities are held constant. Under either analysis, s women are being shortchanged at its highest profile NCAA schools. The NCAA is composed of a wide variety of schools in terms of emphasis on and resources devoted to sports. The NCAA is broken down into three divisions. Division I institutions sponsor at least seven sports for men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women), with two team sports for each sex. Within Division I, schools with football teams are in Division I-A or I-AA, with Division I-A football programs being the most elaborate as well as having to meet minimum home game attendance requirements. Division I-AAA schools do not have football programs. Division II institutions have to sponsor at least four sports for men and four for women, with two team sports for each sex. These schools tend to draw more local or in-state student-athletes. Division III schools have to sponsor at least five sports for each sex, with two team sports for each as well. Division III student-athletes receive no athletics-related financial aid. 32 s NCAA Division I schools are doing the best job at gender equity in participation levels compared to schools in the other NCAA divisions, and Division I-AAA schools in particular have done an excellent job. Categorizing schools by the divisions they reported on their Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act report, s Division I schools are doing the best job at gender equity, in participation levels compared to schools in the other NCAA divisions. Division I-AAA schools in particular have done an excellent job. Division I schools had a 6.2% athletic equity difference in (compared with 14.1% for Division II and 11.2% for Division III), a 5.5% difference in (compared with 13.5% for Division II and 12.8% for Division III), and a 4.5% difference in (compared with 13.6% for Division II and 13.5% for Division III). Notable in this data are the trends for each division, as Division I is steadily moving toward gender equity (from 6.2% in to 4.5% in ) while Division III schools are steadily moving away from an equitable distribution of athletic opportunities (from 11.2% in to 13.5% in ). Division II s distribution held close to steady in the three years studied (between 13.5% and 14.1%). Within Division I, 18

24 the Division I-AAA schools had almost exact equity all three years -- a.7% athletic equity difference in favor of women in , a 1.5% athletic equity difference in favor of women in , and a 2.5% athletic equity difference in favor of women in CHART 16: ATHLETIC EQUITY DIFFERENCE BY NCAA DIVISION schools compete in a variety of athletic associations: 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% NCAA I NCAA II NCAA III NCAA: National Collegiate Athletic Association NAIA: National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics NJCAA: National Junior College Athletic Association Interesting divisional splits also appear when looking at the total amount of money spent on athletics. The smaller non-ncaa athletic associations tend to spend their money more equitably than the NCAA does. For instance, both the NCCAA and the group of unaffiliated colleges spent more money per athletic position on women s athletics than men s athletics in all three years studied. The other two non-ncaa associations, the NJCAA and the NAIA, both had at least one year in favor of each sex among the three years studied. YEAR CHART 17: PER ATHLETIC POSITION TOTAL SPENDING NCAA NAIA NJCAA NCCAA OTHERS Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women $5,988 $4,553 $2,768 $3,236 $1,668 $1,532 $616 $976 $611 $ $6,813 $5,255 $7,262 $6,041 $1,588 $1,715 $674 $751 $722 $ $7,487 $6,059 $7,185 $5,329 $1,743 $2,073 $647 $774 $805 $1,001 NCCAA: National Christian College Athletic Association Others: schools compete in other conferences, such as the Eastern Collegiate Conference or the Collegiate Athletic Association For a complete listing of which schools are in which association, see Appendix B. 19

25 Within the NCAA, only NCAA Division I-AAA had a respectable record of spending for women s athletics. In both and , the two Division I-AAA schools, Drexel University and Saint Joseph s University, spent more per athletic position on women s athletics than men s athletics (14.7% more in and 9.1% more in ), although that was reversed in when the schools spent more on men s athletics per athlete than women s (7.1% more). All of the other NCAA divisions consistently spent less on women s athletics per athletic position than on men s athletics, with s NCAA Division I-A schools being the biggest culprits. In , on a per athletic position basis, the three Division I-A schools, the State University-Main Campus, Temple University, and the University of Pittsburgh-Main Campus, spent almost twice as much (92.4% more) on men s athletics per athlete than on women s athletics; in , they spent well over double (121.4% more); in , they again spent just under twice as much (84.7% more). A seeming bright spot is the improving equalization of per athlete expenditures in the 44 NCAA III schools, where spending excess on men s athletics has consistently decreased over the three years studied, coming close to equity in (16.2% more in , 6.7% more in , 2.5% more in ). CHART 18: THREE-YEAR AVERAGE NCAA DIVISIONAL SPENDING PER ATHLETE NCAA DIVISIONS Division I: NCAA schools that sponsor at least seven sports for each sex, with at least two team sports each. Division I-A: Division I schools that have the most elaborate football programs, with minimum home attendance requirements for football games. Division I-AA: Division I schools with football that do not meet the Division I-A requirements. Division I-AAA: Division I schools without football. $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 Men Women NCAA I-A NCAA I-AA NCAA I-AAA NCAA II NCAA III Division II: NCAA schools that sponsor at least four sports for each sex, with at least two team sports each. Division III: NCAA schools that sponsor at least five sports for each sex, with at least two team sports each; also, student-athletes receive no athletics-related financial aid. 20

26 Mainly because of this vast inequality in spending for NCAA Division I- A schools, in all three years studied, non-ncaa schools had a much better record for female athletes in per athletic position spending than NCAA schools. In , non-ncaa schools spent 24% more on female athletes per position than on male athletes per position; in , non- NCAA schools spent 23% more; and in , the non-ncaa schools spent 8% more. The numbers for NCAA schools as a whole were horrendous: in , NCAA schools spent 32% more per men s athletic position; in , they spent 30% more; in , they spent 24% more. The smaller non- NCAA athletic associations tend to spend their money more equitably than the NCAA does. CHART 19: NCAA VERSUS NON-NCAA PER ATHLETE EXPENDITURES YEAR NCAA NON-NCAA MEN WOMEN MEN WOMEN $5,988 $4,553 $1,047 $1, $6,813 $5,255 $2,377 $2, $7,487 $6,059 $1,652 $2,266 However, even though per position spending shows some positive signs in some divisions and associations, overall athletic spending continues to favor male students. With only two exceptions, each association and division spent more overall on men s athletics than women s athletics. In , the NAIA spent more on women s athletics than men s, but still spent disproportionately on men s athletics compared to male undergraduate enrollment. In that year, 47.3% of the athletic budget was spent on men s athletics even though only 31.8% of the overall student body were men. These numbers mean that even though women constituted 68.2% of the student body, they received only 52.7% of athletic dollars. Only in the NCCAA in were the numbers virtually completely equitable: 48.9% of the athletic budget was spent on men s athletics and 49.4% of the overall student were men, which meant that women constituted 50.6% of the student body and received 51.1% of the athletic dollars. As the NCCAA s spending record was not equitable in or , its record shows a major improvement that is in line with its improved record for proportional opportunity over the three years studied. 21

27 Again, the one shining example of positives for female athletics are the two schools in the NCAA Division I-AAA. Even though they spent more on men s athletics in all three years, they spent more on women s athletics when compared to the proportion of women in the entire undergraduate student body. In , the Division I-AAA schools spent 46.6% of their athletic budget on women sports even though women constituted only 42.5% of the undergraduate student body. In , the numbers were similar: the schools spent 46.2% of their athletic budget on women sports while women constituted only 42.6% of the undergraduate student body. In , the numbers were almost perfectly equitable: the schools spent 43.8% of their athletic budget on women s sports while women constituted only 43.0% of the undergraduate student body. 22

28 IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS From the data collected for this analysis, several conclusions can be drawn about the state of intercollegiate athletics in. There is much that is troubling about the data, but there is also much that is encouraging. A. T H E B A D 1. PENNSYLVANIA IS FAILING TO PROVIDE PROPORTIONATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR FEMALE ATHLETES. Almost every measure shows that s co-educational colleges, taken as a whole, are shortchanging female athletes. Because of s size, there are over 15,000 positions for female athletes, and approximately 13,000 individual women playing intercollegiate sports, but both of these numbers pale in comparison to the totals for men. Neither number mirrors the proportion of women enrolled full-time in undergraduate institutions, a measure of athletic proportionality frequently used as one aspect of Title IX compliance. As a result, if schools were to keep the same number of opportunities for male athletes, over 8,000 new positions for women would have to be added to have proportionality between the number of positions available to women and the number of women enrolled in s schools. In a very troubling trend, this number has grown each of the three years studied. With the incredible academic, health, and lifestyle benefits that flow from athletic participation, the 8,000 missing athletic opportunities reflect a huge loss for women in college in. Several individual conferences or athletic associations have serious problems with gender equity in. The NCAA, the largest and highest-profile athletic association in the country and state, is missing over 7,000 athletic opportunities for women. The NJCAA, the athletic association with which many of s community colleges are associated, has consistently had a gap between the proportion of women enrolled in its schools and the proportion of women s athletic opportunities approaching 20%. The trends for Pennsyvlania s NCAA III schools, the 44 NCAA schools that do not offer athletically-related student aid but rather are supposed to encourage[] participation by maximizing the number and variety of athletics opportunities available to students, 33 show a widening gap between women s enrollment and women s athletic opportunities. These are all troubling data reflecting deep inequities in women s athletic opportunities. 23

29 2. PENNSYLVANIA S FUNDING DISPARITIES FOR WOMEN S ATHLETICS ARE SHAMEFUL. In almost every area measurable by dollars spent, s colleges and universities have failed to spend proportionately on women s athletics. Overall, s female college athletes receive $.60 for every $1 spent on male athletes. Overall spending: Schools spent $45 million more on men s athletics than on women s athletics in , $52 million more in , and $54 million more in Operating expenses: Schools spent $8 million more in , $9.5 million more in , and $12 million more in on operating expenses for male athletes than on operating expenses for female athletes. Scholarships: Men received about $7 million more in scholarship money in all three years studied. Recruiting dollars: Schools spent almost double each year on recruiting male athletes than on recruiting female athletes. Coaches: Schools spent $12 million more on coaching salaries for men s teams in and and $16 million more in The differences are slightly less drastic when comparing expenditures on a per athletic position basis, but nonetheless the evidence still shows more spending for male athletes. Overall, s schools are spending about $.83 per position for female athletes for every $1 spent per position for male athletes. Overall spending: About $1,250 more is spent per athletic position for men than for women, and that number has stayed relatively steady over the three years studied. Operating expenses: Schools are spending an increasingly inequitable amount on operating expenses, spending about $100 or 7% more per position for men in , about $170 or 14% more in , and about $280 or 22% more in

30 Recruiting dollars: Schools spent about 45% more per position for men in all three years studied. Coaches: In all three years, schools spent about $275 less per female athlete on coaching. Overall, although different sports require different levels of funding, schools fund male athletes at a higher rate than female athletes. Of particular concern are the recruiting numbers. With the Department of Education s recent emphasis on the importance of judging student interest in athletics participation, 34 schools vastly underproportionate attempts to recruit young women who are interested in sports to attend their institutions implicates the schools in any lack of interest their female students may have. If schools do not recruit female athletes, their female students will be less likely to demonstrate an interest in sports. 35 Furthermore, these funding disparities on a per athlete basis mask an even greater level of funding disparity because does not provide proportionate athletic opportunities for women in comparison to the total number of women enrolled in undergraduate institutions. In order to spend equitably compared to the number of women enrolled in colleges and universities, schools would have to almost double the amount of money they spend on women s athletics per student. 3. MALE COACHES, WHO PREDOMINATE OVER FEMALE COACHES FOR BOTH MEN S AND WOMEN S SPORTS, EARN MORE MONEY THAN FEMALE COACHES. Men s head coaches in earn an average of $6,100 more than women s head coaches, and men s assistant coaches earn an average of $5,725 more than women s assistant coaches. Because only 5% of men s coaches are women, the higher paying men s coaching jobs are almost exclusively male. Even the coaches of women s sports are predominantly male, as only 49% of women s sports coaches are female. Overall, only about 25% of coaches of college teams are women. 25