As Anriel Howard Shows, Underpayment Of Elite Women's Basketball Players Only Begins

2,760 Views | 5 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by isitjustme
Rudybryan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Does anyone remember seeing this article last year

EDITOR'S PICK 5,924 views Aug 12, 2018, 04:54pm

As Anriel Howard Shows, Underpayment Of Elite Women's Basketball Players Only Begins In College

David Berri Contributor SportsMoney


A few days ago, it was reported that Anriel Howard was transferring from the Texas A&M Aggies to the Mississippi State Bulldogs. Howard was the most productive player on the Aggies last season, and her addition for the 2018-19 season should definitely help the Bulldogs overcome the departure of Victoria Vivians.

One can argue, though, that Howard's decision was not just about the Aggies and Bulldogs. It appears to highlight the choices elite athletes in women's basketball face in the United States.

Let's start with the story in college. Howard leaves Texas A&M as the school's all-time leading rebounder. If we consider all the box-score statistics, we see that of all the players returning in the Southeastern Conference, only Teaira McCowan Howard's new teammate with the Bulldogs produced more wins in 2017-18. So Howard's addition clearly should help the Bulldogs on the court.


Howard, though, does more than just produce wins on the court. As detailed in my textbook Sports Economics and the blog that accompanies the book we can do more than just measure how many wins Howard produces. We can also see how much revenue those wins are worth. This analysis indicates that last season Howard led Texas A&M with 6.6 wins produced and that these wins were worth $126,931 in revenue. The cost of attending Texas A&M for out-of-state students is estimated to be $54,332. That means Howard was definitely underpaid by the Aggies.

In other words, like many women in college basketball, Howard was exploited by Texas A&M.

According to data from the Department of Education, in 2016-17 (the last year revenue data was reported by colleges and universities), Mississippi State reported $4.7 million in revenue from women's college basketball while Texas A&M reported only $1.1 million. Consequently, if Howard maintains her productivity (and revenues for Mississippi State are similar next year to what they were in 2016-17), then Howard will generate $352,654 in revenue for the Bulldogs next season. This is many times the cost of attending Mississippi State. So relative to her time with the Aggies, Howard will be even more underpaid by the Bulldogs.


rest of article hit link

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidberri/2018/08/12/forbes-underpayment-of-elite-athletes-in-womens-basketball-only-begins-in-college/#426614bf2c63
MikesFamousJava
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stupid article is stupid, yawn. Hard-hitting journalist ignores costs incurred by universities for paying coaches and staffs, building and maintaining facilities, etc., but let's not let facts and logic interfere with pushing an agenda.
greg.w.h
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm sorry Lashes got mentioned in that article. It leaves the impression she left for financial reasons and I doubt that was true.
greg.w.h
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
She might have left on the gambit playing for a better team would result in a greater likelihood of being drafted. Which suggests an economics perspective or strategy, but still got cut. So it didn't help.
Artimus Gordon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
She rolled the dice, but it really didn't pay off! What could have been if she had stayed here for her senior year. MSU went one step farther than we did, but she flushed 3 years of goodwill at A&M down the drain and still didn't bring MSU a championship.
Thymes
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wonder how many senior transfers end up with at least a master's degree.
isitjustme
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What about the scholarship players on the team who play very little and/or produce no wins and therefore no revenue. They each get the same $54,000 that the leading players get. Should they have to pay the money back (of course not) or is the opportunity to get a degree with no out-of-pocket cost a good enough payment (I think yes)? This can apply to any full-scholarship sport.

This sports economist seems to be more of a college athlete booster instead of an economist.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.