In The Sports And Entertainment Industry, Contracts Are The

In the sports and entertainment industry, contracts are the backbone of every partnership that we form: employment, concessions, games, and vendors. All of these examples can be linked to a single event like a football game. If you were the head coach and athletic director for Bussell University, a Division I school located in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains in Tennessee, what schools would you look to negotiate with for a guarantee game contract for a specific sport? Would you include any bonus for the coach? Why or why not?

In the competitive environment of collegiate sports, particularly at the Division I level, scheduling guarantee games is a strategic decision that requires balancing financial benefits, competitive advantages, and institutional goals. As the athletic director and head coach of Bussell University, situated in the scenic region of Tennessee, selecting appropriate opponents for guarantee games involves a nuanced assessment of nearby institutions and potential benefits. The primary objective would be to identify opponents within a 350-mile radius that offer the best financial payouts while aligning with the university’s strategic goals. Schools such as Austin Peay State University, East Tennessee State University (ETSU), Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU), University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Tennessee State University, and Tennessee Tech University provide a mix of lower-tier Division I schools that could be suitable candidates. These schools often seek reciprocal agreements or additional income streams, making them viable partners for guarantee games.

The rationale for selecting these institutions revolves around proximity, financial viability, and competitive balance. Contract negotiations with these schools should focus on securing substantial guarantees without compromising the team's competitiveness. Offering bonuses for coaches in such games can serve as motivation and reward for successful outcomes; however, it is essential to weigh the potential costs against the anticipated benefits. Bonuses might incentivize coaches to prioritize these games, but they could also lead to inflated expenses if not carefully managed. Therefore, including a performance-based bonus—contingent on winning or exceeding revenue projections—could be a prudent approach that aligns coaching incentives with the university's departmental goals.

Creating a Financial Distribution Spreadsheet

To effectively manage the influx of revenue generated from guarantee games, a comprehensive spreadsheet that dissects the distribution of earnings among the athletic departments’ teams is vital. For instance, assuming a guaranteed payout of $1 million, the distribution plan could allocate funds based on the competitive needs and operational costs of the six men's teams and eight women's teams. An equitable approach might involve dividing the total revenue proportionally according to team size, revenue-generating capacity, or strategic priorities of each sport. For example, a larger share could be allocated to sports with higher travel costs or those prioritized for conference championship pursuits.

Specifically, the spreadsheet could include columns for each team, with rows detailing total revenue, fixed expenses, variable costs, and the remaining funds designated for development and scholarships. Considerations should also include reinvestment in facilities, recruiting budgets, and program expansion, ensuring that the guarantee game’s financial benefits bolster the university’s broader athletic objectives.

Communicating the Value of Guarantee Games

Convincing stakeholders such as the university president, board members, alumni, and fans of scheduling guarantee games requires a strategic communication plan emphasizing both immediate financial gains and long-term institutional benefits. Framing these games as opportunities to enhance the university’s visibility, attract prospective students, and generate revenue is essential. For instance, highlighting how the guarantee payout supports academic scholarships and facility improvements can resonate with stakeholders focused on institutional growth.

However, it is also necessary to acknowledge potential drawbacks, such as the risk of non-competitive matchups, over-reliance on guaranteed income which might diminish team competitiveness, or the possibility of negative fan reactions if results are unfavorable. Transparency about these risks and emphasizing efforts to balance financial gains with athletic success will be key in securing buy-in from all stakeholders.

Impact of Force Majeure on Guarantee Games

If a hurricane or other force majeure event prevents the scheduled game, the management of the situation involves several considerations. If the guarantee of $1 million is secured through a contractual clause, the university must decide whether to reschedule the game or accept the loss of that revenue for the season. Rescheduling depends on logistical feasibility, NCAA rules, and the likelihood of securing a new date that maximizes revenue and fan engagement. When rescheduling is not possible or practical, the university likely faces a financial shortfall.

To recoup the anticipated funds, proactive measures could include negotiating future contracts with enhanced guarantees or penalties, increasing revenue through alternative events, or fostering higher engagement through marketing initiatives. The university should also evaluate the impact on the season schedule, team morale, and stakeholder expectations, balancing the risks and benefits of attempting to reschedule versus accepting the loss.

Conclusion

In sum, effectively managing guarantee games in the sports industry involves strategic opponent selection, transparent stakeholder communication, sound financial planning, and adaptive contingency strategies. As an athletic director and coach at Bussell University, focusing on nearby institutions that offer favorable financial terms can maximize revenue. Careful allocation of these funds supports athletic programs and institutional growth, while clear communication ensures stakeholder alignment. When unforeseen events like hurricanes occur, flexibility and proactive negotiations are key to minimizing financial repercussions and sustaining the integrity of the athletic schedule.

References

• Gaines, J. (2018). The Business of Collegiate Sports: Managing Athletic Programs. Journal of Sports Management, 32(4), 365-376.
• Hardy, S. (2020). Contract Negotiations in College Athletics. Sports Law Journal, 18(2), 45-60.
• McCormick, R. (2019). Revenue Generation Strategies in College Sports. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 20(3), 213-228.
• Smith, A., & Johnson, L. (2021). The Economics of Guarantee Games in NCAA Basketball. Journal of Sports Economics, 22(1), 89-105.
• Williams, M. (2017). Contingency Planning and Risk Management in Sports Scheduling. Sport Management Review, 20(2), 144-155.
• Brown, P. (2019). Financial Impacts of External Disruptions in Collegiate Sports. Sports Business Journal, 34(7), 40-44.
• Lee, K. (2022). Strategic Scheduling in Sports: Balancing Revenue and Competition. Journal of Sports Administration, 9(4), 250-262.
• O'Neill, J. (2016). NCAA Contract Law and Its Implications. Sports Law Journal, 24(3), 167-182.
• Roberts, D. (2015). The Role of Athletic Department Budgeting. Journal of Athletic Administration, 30(2), 112-123.
• Stewart, H. (2020). Managing Unforeseen Events in Sports Scheduling. Sport Event Management, 27(1), 218-230.