Athletic Fundraising: An In-depth Analysis of the Challenges Faced and Strategies Utilized in the NCAA Division II Athletic Landscape

Abstract

In the current economic environment, state appropriations to higher education are continually decreasing, with cuts in state aid resulting in universities undergoing significant financial cuts (Mitchell et al., 2017). In particular, National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division II athletic departments have been seriously impacted. The Division II structure requires athletic programs to depend on private, charitable contributions, brought in through organized fundraising activities. This study used the previous athletic fundraising literature and stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) to guide 14 semi-structured interviews with Division II athletic fundraisers, representing a wide range of universities. The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify the major challenges that individuals who fundraise for Division II athletic departments face as well as the strategies that are being used to overcome those challenges. This study also aimed to identify the role that stakeholders played in athletic fundraising and how stakeholder claims of power, urgency, and legitimacy guided the fundraising process (Mitchell et al., 1997). Theoretical and practical implications are also advanced.

Untitled

“…The slow economic growth since 2010s and decrease of state appropriations to higher education institutions have created severe financial constraints and pressure on the intercollegiate athletics departments (Burgmaster 2020, Glasgow 2017, Hanson 2019, Humboldt State University 2018, Mitchell et al 2017, Rackers 2016. The COVID-19 pandemic certainly made the problem worse for many small colleges and universities in Division-II or III.…”

“…Athletic departments across the country have experienced the burden of raising huge funds to keep their programs operating, so they have relied on creative organizational strategies and activities to maximize private and charitable contributions (Hanson 2019). In general, about 25% of schools" athletic budgets came from fundraising efforts, which include major donors contributing for athletic scholarships and other initiatives, priority points programs tied to seating and parking for revenue generating sports, small annual fund contributions and million-dollar capital contributions (Wolverton and Kambhampati 2016).…”

“…Recently, more studies and articles have gradually emphasized the importance of the concept of diversity and inclusion in expanding the donor base and the involvement of stakeholders to maximize the philanthropic support for education (including athletic departments) and traditional charity (Hanson 2019, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis 2019, Steinbach 2012, Women of Color 2019). According to a report issued by the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, regardless of gender and race, all donors with high net worth were equally willing to donate to the charity (Women of Color 2019).…”

“…Many institutions began to recognize the role stakeholders may play in the fundraising process, so they utilized their athletic coaches and student-athletes to solicit the support from the donors. Often times, these involved individuals belonging to the racial minority groups (Hanson 2019).…”

Wearable Devices and Digital Biomarkers for Optimizing Training Tolerances and Athlete Performance: A Case Study of a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III Soccer Team over a One-Year Period

“…The highlighted gap in current orthopedic sports performance research points to the financial inequality across collegiate athletics [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 29 ]. The financial inequality among the DI, DII, and DIII collegiate athlete divisions, therefore, translates into the importance and need for the engineering and development of low-cost sensor technology and open-access algorithms that are amenable to teams in lower collegiate levels to enable more equitable sports medicine monitoring.…”