The summary of the proposed GOP tax bill released today contains this language:
"...[T]he special rule that provides a charitable deduction of 80% of the amount paid for the right to purchase tickets for athletic events would be repealed."

This could have a significant effect upon college athletic revenues.

(11-02-2017 01:10 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  The summary of the proposed GOP tax bill released today contains this language:
"...[T]he special rule that provides a charitable deduction of 80% of the amount paid for the right to purchase tickets for athletic events would be repealed."

This could have a significant effect upon college athletic revenues.

Not a problem for Carolina.
Contributions to the Educational Foundation (Rams Club) go to pay for scholarship costs for Student Athletes.

(11-02-2017 01:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 01:10 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  The summary of the proposed GOP tax bill released today contains this language:
"...[T]he special rule that provides a charitable deduction of 80% of the amount paid for the right to purchase tickets for athletic events would be repealed."

This could have a significant effect upon college athletic revenues.

Not a problem for Carolina.
Contributions to the Educational Foundation (Rams Club) go to pay for scholarship costs for Student Athletes.

Are you kidding? UNC would have the same problem as everyone else.

(11-02-2017 01:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 01:10 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  The summary of the proposed GOP tax bill released today contains this language:
"...[T]he special rule that provides a charitable deduction of 80% of the amount paid for the right to purchase tickets for athletic events would be repealed."

This could have a significant effect upon college athletic revenues.

Not a problem for Carolina.
Contributions to the Educational Foundation (Rams Club) go to pay for scholarship costs for Student Athletes.

Those are precisely what the bill is targeting for elimination.

While I wholeheartedly agree this is something that should be done, it will face fierce opposition in Congress, IMO. Keep in mind that many of the same people who are shelling out the big bucks for basketball and football tix are major donors to politicians' campaigns as well.

Another item in the bill would affect major universities more generally -- a special 1.4% tax on university endowment income.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/...li=BBnbfcN

I think it is a great idea..

(11-02-2017 02:40 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Another item in the bill would affect major universities more generally -- a special 1.4% tax on university endowment income.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/...li=BBnbfcN

This won't have major impact. It's sole purpose is to poke a finger in the eye of what the right likes to call academic elitists. It is likely intended as a bargaining chip to be given up as a sop to blue states who are also heavily targeted by this proposed legislation.

(11-03-2017 08:43 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 02:40 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Another item in the bill would affect major universities more generally -- a special 1.4% tax on university endowment income.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/...li=BBnbfcN

This won't have major impact. It's sole purpose is to poke a finger in the eye of what the right likes to call academic elitists. It is likely intended as a bargaining chip to be given up as a sop to blue states who are also heavily targeted by this proposed legislation.

There's a good chance this will be abandoned along the way. In fact, there's a fairly good chance this bill is going to fail altogether. However, if this provision were to pass, there would be a significant impact on college athletics. Charitable donations tied to perks are a major source of athletic department funding. The 80% deduction encourages this type of donation for those with high incomes. Take that away and athletic department donations decrease. I've read all sorts of comments here about differences between conference TV revenues. This tax provision would stand to have a much bigger impact on college athletics than conference networks. The impact would not be even. It would have a greater impact on schools which get more donations. In the ACC, I think this would be Duke, UNC, Notre Dame and U.Va more than the others but I don't know for sure.

Anyway, just to give you an idea of how these things work, here are links to charts showing gift levels and benefits at UNC, Duke, WFU and Virginia Tech.

(11-03-2017 10:05 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 08:43 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 02:40 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Another item in the bill would affect major universities more generally -- a special 1.4% tax on university endowment income.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/...li=BBnbfcN

This won't have major impact. It's sole purpose is to poke a finger in the eye of what the right likes to call academic elitists. It is likely intended as a bargaining chip to be given up as a sop to blue states who are also heavily targeted by this proposed legislation.

There's a good chance this will be abandoned along the way. In fact, there's a fairly good chance this bill is going to fail altogether. However, if this provision were to pass, there would be a significant impact on college athletics. Charitable donations tied to perks are a major source of athletic department funding. The 80% deduction encourages this type of donation for those with high incomes. Take that away and athletic department donations decrease. I've read all sorts of comments here about differences between conference TV revenues. This tax provision would stand to have a much bigger impact on college athletics than conference networks. The impact would not be even. It would have a greater impact on schools which get more donations. In the ACC, I think this would be Duke, UNC, Notre Dame and U.Va more than the others but I don't know for sure.

Anyway, just to give you an idea of how these things work, here are links to charts showing gift levels and benefits at UNC, Duke, WFU and Virginia Tech.

IIRC, for the right to buy 2 basketball season tickets, you need to contribute $6K at Carolina and $8K at Duke. That's a huge part of the total athletics revenue for both schools. At places like Texas and Alabama, the cost for football tickets (where stadium capacity is huge compared with UNC and Duke, the total dollars are even larger.

But before we assume those donations would dry up, consider what happens in parts of the country where pro teams dominate. In many cities, the only way to get NFL tickets is to buy a PSL (Permanent Seat License). Those aren't deductible for the ordinary fan, but they buy them anyway.

It's a complicated equation, and I don't think we can predict with any accuracy how big the impact would be if this provision were enacted.

The schools will not suffer overall. Those looking for tax breaks will simply donate to the academic side of the university. As to the athletic departments, when big schools are wasting money on frivolous amenities in the AD and in the stadium/arena, should a tax break be given? The mission of a school is education, not sports. I am all for sports, but why should someone get a tax break because they donate $$$$$ for luxury boxes to be built in their stadium?

Fund the scholarships (tuition, books, fees, room/board), buildings, labs, academics, professorships, etc. Let the luxuries generate tax revenue. Those that want the luxuries will pay the tax.

There probably will be some shift in the AD budgets but then that will possibly create better competition as some schools will have less enticements and will have to get back to the basics (you know, EDUCATION! actually educating the student athletes - Yes, SEC, I am looking at you!).


For the record, I am for an NFL minor league system wherein kids not academically eligible for college or simply not interested in college at the time can play and work their way into the NFL, but such is not likely until the NCAA disallows kids to play if they are not truly academically eligible.

(11-03-2017 10:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 10:05 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 08:43 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 02:40 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Another item in the bill would affect major universities more generally -- a special 1.4% tax on university endowment income.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/...li=BBnbfcN

This won't have major impact. It's sole purpose is to poke a finger in the eye of what the right likes to call academic elitists. It is likely intended as a bargaining chip to be given up as a sop to blue states who are also heavily targeted by this proposed legislation.

There's a good chance this will be abandoned along the way. In fact, there's a fairly good chance this bill is going to fail altogether. However, if this provision were to pass, there would be a significant impact on college athletics. Charitable donations tied to perks are a major source of athletic department funding. The 80% deduction encourages this type of donation for those with high incomes. Take that away and athletic department donations decrease. I've read all sorts of comments here about differences between conference TV revenues. This tax provision would stand to have a much bigger impact on college athletics than conference networks. The impact would not be even. It would have a greater impact on schools which get more donations. In the ACC, I think this would be Duke, UNC, Notre Dame and U.Va more than the others but I don't know for sure.

Anyway, just to give you an idea of how these things work, here are links to charts showing gift levels and benefits at UNC, Duke, WFU and Virginia Tech.

IIRC, for the right to buy 2 basketball season tickets, you need to contribute $6K at Carolina and $8K at Duke. That's a huge part of the total athletics revenue for both schools. At places like Texas and Alabama, the cost for football tickets (where stadium capacity is huge compared with UNC and Duke, the total dollars are even larger.

But before we assume those donations would dry up, consider what happens in parts of the country where pro teams dominate. In many cities, the only way to get NFL tickets is to buy a PSL (Permanent Seat License). Those aren't deductible for the ordinary fan, but they buy them anyway.

It's a complicated equation, and I don't think we can predict with any accuracy how big the impact would be if this provision were enacted.

I can only speak for Carolina.
Most of the seats in the Smith Center are grandfathered to the persons that contributed to the construction of the building ( a permanent seat license). These tickets can be passed down for one generation but require an annual donation to the Educational Foundation (Rams Club). This arrangement is valid as long as the Smith Center is used as the venue for Carolina basketball. The only way tickets become available to Rams Club members is through attrition of the current seat holders and their families.
Those seats can come available to current Rams Club members based on a points system (one point for every $100 contributed and 2 points per year of Rams Club membership). Currently it would take a donation to the Rams Club of about $50,000 to acquire enough points to qualify for 2 basketball tickets. BTW the Rams Club bought and paid for the Smith Center and then donated it to the University so that no public funds were used for it's construction. When the University accepted the Dean Dome the seat selection process was already in place and it's continuation was part of the "conditions" of the gift. The Rams Club also paid to enclose one end of Kenan Stadium with a similar arrangement to distribute the tickets to that section of the stadium (which abuts, but does not touch the State owned Kenan Stadium).
NOTE: The Rams Club is NOT a part of the University. The Rams Club does pay for all of the scholarship costs of every athlete on campus (currently about $15 million per year). These monies are often listed as a subsidy to the athletic department for budgeting purposes. The trade off from the University to the Rams Club for scholarship contributions are "incentives" such as parking and seat selection (football), but not tickets.

Those high license fees for seats are one reason I no longer buy season tickets. That and paying high prices to park in an assigned space away from those you used to get there early and tailgate with because it was whom got the space first was the old rule. Then the High Rollers that came in before gametime started whinning about a long walk into the stadiums made Their voices and pocketbooks known to get the close in parking locations that screwed the true tailgaters that support these school teams for many years through thick and thin. Sick of the money grab .

(11-08-2017 08:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 10:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 10:05 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 08:43 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 02:40 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Another item in the bill would affect major universities more generally -- a special 1.4% tax on university endowment income.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/...li=BBnbfcN

This won't have major impact. It's sole purpose is to poke a finger in the eye of what the right likes to call academic elitists. It is likely intended as a bargaining chip to be given up as a sop to blue states who are also heavily targeted by this proposed legislation.

There's a good chance this will be abandoned along the way. In fact, there's a fairly good chance this bill is going to fail altogether. However, if this provision were to pass, there would be a significant impact on college athletics. Charitable donations tied to perks are a major source of athletic department funding. The 80% deduction encourages this type of donation for those with high incomes. Take that away and athletic department donations decrease. I've read all sorts of comments here about differences between conference TV revenues. This tax provision would stand to have a much bigger impact on college athletics than conference networks. The impact would not be even. It would have a greater impact on schools which get more donations. In the ACC, I think this would be Duke, UNC, Notre Dame and U.Va more than the others but I don't know for sure.

Anyway, just to give you an idea of how these things work, here are links to charts showing gift levels and benefits at UNC, Duke, WFU and Virginia Tech.

IIRC, for the right to buy 2 basketball season tickets, you need to contribute $6K at Carolina and $8K at Duke. That's a huge part of the total athletics revenue for both schools. At places like Texas and Alabama, the cost for football tickets (where stadium capacity is huge compared with UNC and Duke, the total dollars are even larger.

But before we assume those donations would dry up, consider what happens in parts of the country where pro teams dominate. In many cities, the only way to get NFL tickets is to buy a PSL (Permanent Seat License). Those aren't deductible for the ordinary fan, but they buy them anyway.

It's a complicated equation, and I don't think we can predict with any accuracy how big the impact would be if this provision were enacted.

I can only speak for Carolina.
Most of the seats in the Smith Center are grandfathered to the persons that contributed to the construction of the building ( a permanent seat license). These tickets can be passed down for one generation but require an annual donation to the Educational Foundation (Rams Club). This arrangement is valid as long as the Smith Center is used as the venue for Carolina basketball. The only way tickets become available to Rams Club members is through attrition of the current seat holders and their families.
Those seats can come available to current Rams Club members based on a points system (one point for every $100 contributed and 2 points per year of Rams Club membership). Currently it would take a donation to the Rams Club of about $50,000 to acquire enough points to qualify for 2 basketball tickets. BTW the Rams Club bought and paid for the Smith Center and then donated it to the University so that no public funds were used for it's construction. When the University accepted the Dean Dome the seat selection process was already in place and it's continuation was part of the "conditions" of the gift. The Rams Club also paid to enclose one end of Kenan Stadium with a similar arrangement to distribute the tickets to that section of the stadium (which abuts, but does not touch the State owned Kenan Stadium).
NOTE: The Rams Club is NOT a part of the University. The Rams Club does pay for all of the scholarship costs of every athlete on campus (currently about $15 million per year). These monies are often listed as a subsidy to the athletic department for budgeting purposes. The trade off from the University to the Rams Club for scholarship contributions are "incentives" such as parking and seat selection (football), but not tickets.

I would add the Rams Club covers what the scholarship endowment doesn't. The endowment currently covers 70% of the cost

The bill passed the house. A similar bill without the removal of the 80% reduction is in the Senate. If it passes the 2 bills will be merged and then re-voted on in the house and senate.

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story...w-tax-plan

(11-16-2017 08:53 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  The bill passed the house. A similar bill without the removal of the 80% reduction is in the Senate. If it passes the 2 bills will be merged and then re-voted on in the house and senate.

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story...w-tax-plan

More likely the House will have to accept whatever the Senate passes, assuming the Senate can pass anything.

I make 65k a year. I'll just pick up my tickets in the parking lot before the game.

This ended up in the final bill. Expect ticket prices to popular events to soar. UNC at Duke tickets may have a face price over $1,000 next season. Seriously. People worry over relatively minor differences in TV revenues. This is an earthquake for college athletics. If they can't trade premium tickets for tax deductible contributions everything changes.
https://t.co/6PoVwQzgoo

(12-15-2017 11:22 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  This ended up in the final bill. Expect ticket prices to popular events to soar. UNC at Duke tickets may have a face price over $1,000 next season. Seriously. People worry over relatively minor differences in TV revenues. This is an earthquake for college athletics. If they can't trade premium tickets for tax deductible contributions everything changes.
https://t.co/6PoVwQzgoo

This is a good thing. We shouldn't be subsidizing collegiate athletics through the tax code. There will be endless griping and crying and complaining from anybody with a FBS football program. But this is a healthy move in the long run.

(12-15-2017 11:58 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 11:22 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  This ended up in the final bill. Expect ticket prices to popular events to soar. UNC at Duke tickets may have a face price over $1,000 next season. Seriously. People worry over relatively minor differences in TV revenues. This is an earthquake for college athletics. If they can't trade premium tickets for tax deductible contributions everything changes.
https://t.co/6PoVwQzgoo

This is a good thing. We shouldn't be subsidizing collegiate athletics through the tax code. There will be endless griping and crying and complaining from anybody with a FBS football program. But this is a healthy move in the long run.

So basically this tax bill will screw the middle class and the wealthy don't get to deduct their season tickets. They will make it up somewhere else in the tax bill I'm sure. Meanwhile any tax breaks the regular people get expire in ten years and the deficit explodes. What happened to the deficit hawks?

(12-15-2017 11:58 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 11:22 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  This ended up in the final bill. Expect ticket prices to popular events to soar. UNC at Duke tickets may have a face price over $1,000 next season. Seriously. People worry over relatively minor differences in TV revenues. This is an earthquake for college athletics. If they can't trade premium tickets for tax deductible contributions everything changes.
https://t.co/6PoVwQzgoo

This is a good thing. We shouldn't be subsidizing collegiate athletics through the tax code. There will be endless griping and crying and complaining from anybody with a FBS football program. But this is a healthy move in the long run.

The government shouldn't be subsidizing anything for anybody