Although intercollegiate sports may bring to mind nationally televised football and basketball games, 4-year schools’ intercollegiate sports programs vary widely, from small programs involving fewer than 10 teams with expenditures of less than $1 million to large programs with more than 900 student-athletes and expenditures in excess of $50 million. At many schools, intercollegiate athletic competition serves primarily to meet the needs of student-athletes—to give them opportunities to develop their athletic ability as they pursue their courses of study. Schools also view intercollegiate athletics as a means of recruiting prospective students. At schools with large athletic programs, sports serve as an important focal point for students, faculty and staff, alumni, surrounding communities, and the national television audience. Typically, schools with the largest number of athletic programs and facilities belong to Division I-A of the NCAA, and those with smaller programs are members of NCAA Divisions II or III or the second major national collegiate association, NAIA. Most 4-year postsecondary institutions with intercollegiate athletic programs participate in one of these two associations. NCAA, the larger, administers intercollegiate athletics for over 1,000 4-year (baccalaureate degree-granting) schools. Division I member schools are further divided into three categories—I-A, I- AA, and I-AAA—with those that have larger football programs generally placed in I-A and those without football programs in I-AAA. Division I-AA schools sponsor football but are not subject to the spectator attendance requirements that apply to Division I-A schools. In April 2000, NAIA consisted of 330 member institutions. The NAIA does not have divisions except for basketball and football, which each have Divisions I and II. Although no federal monies fund intercollegiate sports programs, federal involvement has arisen in part as a result of civil rights legislation. For example, at schools receiving federal financial assistance, all education programs and activities—including intercollegiate athletic programs—are subject to title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Federal regulations implementing title IX require that men and women be provided equitable opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics, and equitable scholarships, facilities, equipment, supplies, and other benefits. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights assesses schools’ compliance with these requirements. To comply with requirements concerning equitable opportunities to participate in intercollegiate sports, schools must meet any one of the three following criteria, which Education refers to as parts of a three-part test: (1) intercollegiate-level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments, or (2) the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the members of the underrepresented gender, or (3) it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of the underrepresented gender have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program. Since the early 1980s, the number of women participating in intercollegiate sports has increased substantially. Although male athletes still outnumber their female counterparts, the growth in their programs has been much smaller and the number of women’s teams now exceeds the number of men’s teams. The percentage of male undergraduates who participate in intercollegiate athletics is essentially the same as it was in 1981–82, while the percentage of women has increased considerably. The rapid growth in women’s participation in intercollegiate sports since 1981–82 has narrowed the gap between genders (see fig. 1). The number of women in intercollegiate sports increased by 81 percent (from 90,000 to 163,000 participants) and the number of men increased by 5 percent (from 220,000 to 232,000 participants) between 1981–82 and 1998–99. The growth in women’s participation was fastest during the early 1980s and in the 1990s. Men’s participation also grew in the early 1980s, but peaked in 1985–86. Since then, it decreased modestly, then fluctuated within a narrow range. The growth in the number of women athletes may reflect, in part, the rapid increase in women’s undergraduate enrollment. From 1981–82 to 1998–99 women’s undergraduate enrollment grew by 30 percent, compared to 6 percent for men. However, women’s participation also grew as an overall percentage of women undergraduates. Women athletes made up 3.9 percent of women undergraduates in 1981–82 and 5.5 percent in 1998–99. In contrast, the portion of undergraduate men participating in athletics remained relatively steady, starting and ending the period at 9.3 percent. The trends in the number of women participants varied by sport. For example, table 1 shows that the biggest increase in the number of women participants—about 18,000—was in soccer. Though participation increased in most sports, five sports reported decreases in participation. The biggest decline occurred in gymnastics, with nearly 700 fewer women gymnasts in 1998–99 than in 1981–82. In men’s sports, increases and decreases were more evenly balanced, with increases in the number of participants in 14 sports and decreases in 12. As shown in table 2, the greatest increase in numbers of participants occurred in football, with about 7,200 more players. Football also had the greatest number of participants—approximately 60,000, or about twice as many as the next largest sport. Wrestling experienced the largest decrease in participation—a drop of more than 2,600 participants. Though the number of male participants was greater than the number of female participants in 1998–99, there were 330 more women’s teams than men’s teams. The average women’s team had fewer athletes than the average men’s team. From 1981–82 to 1998–99, the number of women’s intercollegiate sports teams increased by 66 percent (from 5,695 to 9,479 teams). Most sports saw an increase in the number of teams, with the largest increase occurring in women’s soccer, where the number of teams rose from 80 to 926. The greatest decrease occurred in gymnastics, where the number of teams fell from 190 to 90 (see table 3). Half of men’s sports saw a decline in the number of teams. Two sports had no change and the remaining sports (nearly half) had an increase in the number of teams. As with women’s sports, the largest increase came in soccer (135 new teams). Football, the sport that saw the largest increase in the number of participants, saw a decrease of 37 teams, mainly from NAIA schools. Gymnastics, fencing, and rifle saw the largest percentage decline in the number of teams. The largest decrease in the number of teams was in wrestling (171 teams) (see table 4). About 80 percent of schools added one or more women’s sports teams during the 1992–93 to 1999–2000 period, and more than two-thirds did so without discontinuing any teams. Student interest in a particular sport was often cited as an influence behind many of these decisions. Gender equity considerations also often influenced decisions to add women’s teams and discontinue men’s teams, particularly at schools with large athletic programs. The financial impact of adding or discontinuing teams varied widely by size of program and by sport. Overall, among the 1,191 college and universities responding to the questionnaire, 963 added at least one team and 307 discontinued at least one (see fig. 2). However, of the 948 schools that added one or more women’s teams, 72 percent did so without discontinuing any teams. Only about 16 percent of all respondents neither added nor discontinued a team from 1992–93 through 1999–2000. In total, schools added nearly three times as many women’s teams as men’s teams during this period—1,919 teams for women, compared with 702 for men. They discontinued more than twice as many men’s teams—386 teams for men, 150 for women. Schools with smaller programs were more likely to add men’s teams. Only about 3 percent of the schools with the largest intercollegiate athletic programs (NCAA Division I-A) added one or more men’s teams, compared with 39 percent for NCAA Division III schools and 54 percent of NAIA schools (see table 5). The level of student interest was the factor schools cited most often as greatly or very greatly influencing their most recent decision to add both men’s and women’s teams (see fig. 3). Overall, 52 percent of the respondents that had added a women’s sports team indicated that student interest was a great or very great influence in the decision, and nearly as many schools (47 percent) cited the need to meet gender equity goals or requirements. Other factors cited less frequently when adding a women’s team included the availability of adequate facilities and sufficient equipment, the growth in the number of teams to compete against, community interest, and enough improvement in a club team’s skill to compete at the varsity intercollegiate level. The factors that most influenced recent decisions to add women’s teams varied by the size of a school’s intercollegiate athletic programs. For example, respondents from NCAA Division I-A schools compared to Division III schools more often cited gender equity considerations (82 percent versus 35 percent) and community interest (35 percent versus 12 percent) as a great or very great influence. Division III schools cited the availability of adequate facilities and sufficient equipment (30 percent, compared with 24 percent in Division I-A.) Both types of schools cited student interest about as often (60 percent versus 55 percent). For men’s sports, the pattern of which factors most influenced schools’ decisions to add a team was somewhat different, particularly with regard to gender equity goals or requirements. As was the case for the addition of women’s teams, student interest was the factor cited most often (49 percent) as influencing the addition of men’s teams. After student interest, the factor cited most often was the availability of sufficient facilities and adequate equipment (32 percent), followed by community interest (23 percent). Gender equity considerations, an influential factor for adding a women’s team, was cited by only 4 percent of schools that had added a men’s team. The level of student interest was the most often cited factor in schools’ most recent decisions to discontinue men’s and women’s teams (see fig. 4). Among the 272 responding schools that discontinued a men’s team, 91 (33 percent) cited lack of student interest as a great or very great influence, 83 (31 percent) cited the need to meet gender equity goals or requirements, and 82 (30 percent) cited the need to reallocate budget resources to other sports. Factors affecting decisions to discontinue men’s teams varied with the size of a school’s program. Among schools with large intercollegiate athletic programs, gender equity considerations more often figured as a great or very great influence. At NCAA Division I-A schools, for example, a majority (54 percent) of the respondents discontinuing a men’s team cited gender equity considerations as a great or very great influence. Insufficient student interest in the sport was not often cited; only 6 percent of respondents cited it as a great or very great influence. In contrast, among NCAA Division III respondents, the absence of sufficient student interest in the sport was the most often-cited factor (44 percent cited it as a great or very great influence). The need to reallocate resources to other sports was the next most often-cited factor (cited by 26 percent), followed by decreases in the budget and gender equity considerations (each cited by 21 percent). Decisions to discontinue a women’s team were generally most often driven by the level of student interest. Of the 123 schools that discontinued one or more women’s teams, 58 percent cited the lack of student interest as a great or very great influence. The next most often-cited influences were the team’s inability to compete at the desired level and the absence of adequate facilities and sufficient equipment. The most recent addition of an intercollegiate team increased the average school’s total intercollegiate expenditures by an estimated 6 percent, and the most recent discontinuation of a team reduced expenditures by 4 percent. In general, schools with larger intercollegiate programs experienced smaller percentage changes in their expenditures, as shown in table 6. For example, adding a women’s team at the NCAA Division I-A level increased costs an average of 3 percent, compared to 5 percent for NCAA Division III and 9 percent for NAIA. The comparable averages for recent additions of men’s teams were 2, 8, and 13 percent. The effect of adding or discontinuing a team also varied by sport (see table 7). For example, schools estimated that adding women’s soccer typically increased expenditures by 6 percent, while adding football teams increased expenditures by an average of 31 percent. Discontinuing men’s tennis decreased expenditures by an average of 2 percent, while discontinuing football decreased expenditures an average of 24 percent. The 307 responding schools that discontinued a team during the 1992–93 to 1999–2000 period typically spent 3 months or less between making the proposal to discontinue a team and making a final decision. Most schools informed the campus community of the proposed discontinuation before the decision was final. Once the decision was made to discontinue a team, however, most did not provide a written explanation for their decision. Most schools held meetings to discuss the proposal with groups in the campus community. Schools with larger athletic programs more often included other interested parties, such as alumni or members of booster clubs. Affected athletes usually continued to receive athletic financial aid after the sport was discontinued. Most decisions to discontinue a team were considered and implemented within a few months following the initial proposal, according to the responses from the colleges and universities concerning the team they most recently discontinued during the 1992–93 to 1999–2000 period. The median of the reported amount of time between making such a proposal to reaching a final decision was 2 months. In 38 percent of cases, both the proposal and the final decision came in the same month. In about 5 percent of cases, the schools took more than a year to reach a final decision. The amount of time before the team stopped participating was also brief. For about one-third of the schools, the team had already stopped participating before the final decision to discontinue the sport was made. For another 26 percent, participation stopped during the month the final decision was made. For another 17 percent of the respondents, participation ended by the third month following the final decision. Only about 5 percent allowed sports teams to continue to play for a year or more past the time when a final decision was made. In most cases the proposal to discontinue the team came from within the athletic department, although college administrations were a common source at schools with smaller athletic programs. About 60 percent said the proposal originated with the athletic department. At NCAA Division I-A schools, the figure was 83 percent. For NAIA and NCAA Division I-AAA schools, about one-third of the proposals originated from the school administration. For example, at NAIA schools that discontinued a sport, the athletic department initiated 46 percent of the proposals and school administration initiated 38 percent. Similarly, at NCAA Division I-AAA schools that discontinued a sport, athletic departments initiated 50 percent of the proposals and the school administration initiated another 36 percent. Most colleges and universities (186 of the 307 schools discontinuing a team) informed the campus community of the possibility of discontinuing the team before the decision was final. Large schools, such as those in NCAA Division I-A, were most likely to use a press release to inform the campus community of the possibility of discontinuing the sport. NCAA Division III schools more often provided the information by mail to individuals or used other means such as meetings with athletes and staff. Most of the schools discontinuing a team (64 percent) informed affected athletes of the decision in the month it was finalized. About 20 percent of these schools indicated that they informed the affected athletes of the decision during the 3 months preceding the final decision. About 10 percent of these schools indicated that they informed the affected student athletes of a decision in the months following a final decision. Typically these schools informed the athletes within a month or two. Overall, less than half (41 percent) of schools that discontinued a sports team provided a written explanation. This varied somewhat by the size of schools’ athletic programs. NCAA Division I-A and I-AA schools were least likely to provide a written explanation to affected athletes; about one- quarter of them did so. Members of NCAA Divisions II and III and NAIA were more likely to provide a written explanation; about half did so. More than two-thirds of the schools that discontinued intercollegiate athletic teams did so without allowing an appeal of the decision. The proportion of schools allowing an appeal varied little by size of schools’ athletic programs—from a low of 25 percent among Division I-AA schools to a high of 36 percent among Division I-AAA schools. Several schools described their appeals process as a meeting with the athletic director. Most schools, however, described appeals as meetings with school administrators or organizational units outside the athletics department. For example, schools allowed student-athletes to appeal to the dean of students, athletic council, the school’s president, or the board of trustees. One respondent described an appeal involving an open forum at which all interested parties could speak; others provided opportunities for a written appeal. About 80 percent of the schools (170 of the 212 responding schools that discontinued a team)—aside from Division III schools which are prohibited from providing athletic financial aid—indicated that they allowed their student-athletes to continue receiving aid even though the team was being discontinued. This was most often the case at NCAA Division I schools; continued aid was available at 90 percent of these schools. This was less often the case at Division II schools, where 72 percent of schools indicated that student athletes could continue to receive aid. For about 86 percent of the schools that continued to provide assistance, the aid was available until the athlete graduated. At most of the rest, the aid was made available for up to 1 year. Among all NCAA and NAIA schools discontinuing a team, 86 percent assisted affected athletes in transferring to another institution’s intercollegiate athletics program. However, affected athletes who remained enrolled at the school did not necessarily have the opportunity to compete in that sport at the club level. Only 41 percent gave the affected athletes that opportunity. A majority of the 1,191 school officials reported that they have been able to add one or more teams without discontinuing others. They used a variety of strategies to do so, including obtaining funding from nonschool sources and finding ways to contain costs. The four schools we reviewed in depth used strategies that ranged from fundraising to awarding fewer scholarships. The 693 schools that added one or more intercollegiate athletic teams over the 1992–93 to 1999–2000 period without discontinuing a team did so more often by obtaining additional revenue than by containing costs and reallocating revenue. Sources of funds tended to vary with the size of the intercollegiate athletic program. As shown in table 8, NCAA Division I-A schools tended to rely on revenue from other sports and from outside sources. Schools with smaller programs, particularly those in NCAA Division III and NAIA, most often used additional funds from the institution’s general fund. In some cases, they reallocated existing resources by, for example, trimming travel expenses for all teams and using the savings to help fund the new team. For more detailed information concerning how schools added teams without discontinuing opportunities for athletes on other teams, we visited four colleges and universities to learn how they enhanced their athletic programs. We selected these four because they represented various sizes of schools and athletic programs, and different regions of the country (see table 9). They used combinations of innovative strategies that, as the survey reported, placed greater emphasis on increasing athletic revenue than on cutting costs in other programs. Fundraising strategies included renting out athletic facilities, and cost-containment approaches included trimming administrative expenditures. Though all four schools have unique characteristics, directors from each athletic program articulated factors that were key to facilitating successful program expansion without discontinuing teams. Table 10 lists these factors. All four schools cited the first three factors and two of the four schools cited the last factor. One of the athletic directors acknowledged, however, that a “one size fits all” approach may not be feasible and that these approaches may not apply to other schools. Athletic directors also identified several specific revenue-generating approaches for adding teams without discontinuing others. Donations. The smaller Division I-A school revitalized a business relationship with the chief executive officer of a local private firm. This individual’s prominence, in turn, encouraged financial support from the rest of the business community. Substantial donations from fans and locally based corporations also enabled the school to add new teams and build facilities such as a new football stadium, a sports complex with a softball field, a track, a soccer field, and a planned Olympic-sized pool. Similarly, at the larger Division I-A school, large donations helped the school to add teams and increase the capacity of its football stadium, build a new basketball and ice hockey arena, and upgrade locker facilities. Rental fees. Another revenue-generating strategy was to rent out athletic facilities for other purposes and use the fees to expand the athletic program. For example, the football stadiums or basketball arenas at the Division I-A schools were used to host cultural and entertainment events such as concerts, or to serve as venues for prominent athletic events such as a World Cup soccer match. In addition, the smaller Division I-A school took advantage of its proximity to a prominent venue by letting the public use the football stadium parking lot to accommodate overflow event parking; the annual proceeds of $200,000 were all allocated to the women’s program. At the Division III school, local high school teams rented the football field for practice and special athletic events. In addition to focusing on raising revenue, one athletic director told us that it was important to maintain flexibility in the use of funds available to the athletic department. For example, the larger Division I-A school’s athletic department requires that any earnings in excess of a specified rate of return on endowment funds designated for specific teams be available for general intercollegiate athletic department uses. This gives the athletic director greater flexibility in allocating resources. All four schools we visited also took various steps to reduce current or avoid incurring additional expenditures. These included the following strategies: Recruiting most prospective student-athletes via telephone rather than Denying requests for some teams to be elevated from club to varsity Replacing a retiring full-time faculty member with a coach who also assumed other administrative duties, Limiting the size of the football team roster, Trimming administrative costs, Not awarding the maximum number of scholarships allowed, and Limiting team travel outside the region to one trip every 2 to 3 years to minimize travel expenses. Another cost-containment strategy involved establishing partnerships between the school and the local community. Such partnerships reflected the schools’ ability to capitalize on the unique characteristics of their geographic location. For example, the larger Division I-A school planned to undertake a cost-sharing project with the city and local school district to build a boathouse on a local river that would accommodate rowing teams from the university, high school, and general public. The smaller Division I- A school teamed with a local hospital offering a nationally recognized sports medicine program. Through the arrangement, the hospital provides free services, including a portable medical facility at sports events and physical screenings for each athlete. The Division III school formed a partnership with a locally based professional men’s basketball team. Under the agreement, the team was able to practice at the school’s basketball courts in exchange for funding a new hardwood floor for the courts and renovations to the men’s and women’s locker rooms. We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for comment, and it did not provide comments. We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Roderick R. Paige, Secretary of Education; appropriate congressional committees; representatives of NCAA and NAIA; and other interested parties. Please call me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any questions about this report. Key contacts and staff acknowledgments for this report are listed in appendix II. As agreed with your offices, we focused our review of intercollegiate athletics on addressing the following questions: How did the number of men’s and women’s intercollegiate sports participants and teams at 4-year colleges and universities change in the 2 decades since the1981–82 school year? How many colleges and universities added and discontinued teams since the 1992–93 school year, and what influenced their most recent decisions to add and discontinue teams? How did colleges and universities make and implement decisions to discontinue intercollegiate sports? When colleges and universities added teams, what types of strategies did they use to avoid discontinuing sports teams or severely reducing their funding? To determine the number of men’s and women’s intercollegiate sports participants and teams, we gathered participation statistics from the two largest 4-year intercollegiate athletic associations—the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Some schools were members of both associations. For example, of the 787 NCAA members and 515 NAIA members in 1981–82, 117 were dual-membership schools. By 1998–99, NCAA had 1,041 members and NAIA had 339 members, 61 of which were dual members as of April 1999, according to the NCAA. Based on the number of teams and average team sizes, we estimated that these schools accounted for about 3 percent of male and 2 percent of female participants in 1997–98. Because dual-membership schools report their participation statistics to both associations, we counted their statistics only once to avoid double-counting the numbers of teams and participants. The adjusted participation statistics were used to calculate net change in number of teams, number of participants, and participation rates between 1981–82 and 1998–99. To estimate rates of participation, we divided the total estimated number of participants for both associations by the estimated total number of full-time undergraduates enrolled at all 4-year institutions. To the extent that an individual student participated in more than one sport, our calculation of the number of participants may be overstated because these individuals are counted more than once in the statistics. In addition, some 4-year institutions are not members of either NAIA or NCAA, and they were excluded from our analyses. Although we did not verify the accuracy of the statistics provided by the NCAA and NAIA, they are the best available data and are widely used by researchers to study intercollegiate athletic participation. To respond to the other three questions, we developed and administered a questionnaire to gather information from athletic directors at all 4-year colleges and universities that were members of either the NAIA or NCAA. We pretested a draft questionnaire at six schools and subsequently revised it based on their comments. In May 2000, we mailed the final questionnaire to 1,310 institutions including 326 NAIA members and 1,040 NCAA members (both active and provisional members.) This included 56 4-year colleges and universities that were members of both NCAA and NAIA. By October 2000, we had received 1,191 usable questionnaire responses for an overall response rate of 91 percent. In some cases, however, respondents did not respond to all applicable questions. The questionnaire asked athletic directors for the total number of women’s and men’s intercollegiate sports teams added and discontinued during the 1992–93 to 1999–2000 school-year period. When calculating the number of new teams added, we excluded teams that had not yet begun participating in intercollegiate competition by the end of the 1999–2000 school year. Similarly, when calculating the number of teams discontinued, we excluded teams whose last day of intercollegiate competition was after the end of the 1999–2000 school year. We asked each school that added or discontinued a team to respond to additional questions concerning only the most recently added and most recently discontinued men’s and women’s sports teams. We reviewed athletic directors’ questionnaire responses for consistency and in many cases contacted them or their staff to resolve inconsistencies, but we did not otherwise verify the information provided in the questionnaire responses. To identify types of strategies that colleges and universities used to avoid discontinuing sports teams or severely reducing their funding, we used the questionnaire to collect information on how schools paid for new teams. We analyzed these responses for schools that had added some teams without discontinuing others. To get some specific examples of how schools augmented their athletic program without eliminating teams or severely reducing their funding, we visited four selected colleges and universities that were NCAA member schools. We chose these schools in order to achieve variation in a number of characteristics, including geographic diversity, whether the school was public or private, size of the athletic department budget, whether the school awarded athletic scholarships, whether sports were profitable, and whether the school sponsored football. At each school, we interviewed the athletic director and other staff involved in administering the athletic program and toured the athletic facilities. In addition to the individuals named above, Joel I. Grossman, Elsie M. Picyk, Meeta Sharma, Sharon M. Silas, Stanley G. Stenersen, Jason M. Suzaka, and James P. Wright made key contributions to this report. Gender Equity: Men's and Women's Participation in Higher Education (GAO-01-128, Dec. 15, 2000). Interscholastic Athletics: School District Provide Some Assistance to Uninsured Student Athletes (GAO/HEHS-00-148, Sep. 12, 2000). Intercollegiate Athletics: Comparison of Selected Characteristics of Men's and Women's Programs (GAO/HEHS-99-3R, June 18, 1999). Intercollegiate Athletics: Status of Efforts to Promote Gender Equity (GAO/HEHS-97-10, Oct. 25, 1996). Intercollegiate Athletics: Compensation Varies for Selected Personnel in Athletic Departments (GAO/HRD-92-121, Aug. 19, 1992).

Summary: The number of women participating in intercollegiate athletics at four-year colleges and universities increased substantially between school years 1981-82 and 1998-99, while the number of men participating increased more modestly. The total number of women's teams increased by 3,784 teams, compared to an increase of 36 men's teams. In all, 963 schools added teams and 307 discontinued teams since 1992-93. The two factors cited most often as greatly influencing the decision to add or discontinue teams were the need to address student interest in particular sports and the need to meet gender equity goals and requirements. Schools that discontinued men's teams also found the need to reallocate the athletic budget to other sports. Colleges and universities that discontinued a team typically took three months or less between originating the proposal and making the final decision. Most schools informed members of the campus community of the possibility that the team would be discontinued, and most held meetings with campus groups before making the final decision. Most schools offered to help affected athletes transfer to other schools, and students receiving athletics-related financial aid continued to receive financial aid for at least some period after the team was disbanded. Schools that were able to add one or more teams without discontinuing others used various strategies to increase athletic program revenue and contain costs. Some schools relied on the institution's general fund, while others used private sources and athletic facility rental fees.