Posts Tagged ‘Forbes’

Follow the March Madness Money

Monday, April 4th, 2011

March Madness is so popular among American sports fans that even President Barack Obama was featured on ESPN filling out his brackets. The President, who predicted a Men’s Final Four of Duke, Kansas, Ohio State and Pittsburgh, said “One thing I wanted to make sure is that viewers who are filling out their brackets — this is a great tradition, we have fun every year doing it.”

According to Investopedia, like so many things in American popular culture, March Madness is an exercise in follow the money. “While many consider the annual NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball tournament to be one of the greatest tournaments in sports, there’s more to the madness than just the teams battling for their place in the Final Four.  Like all great sporting events, the tournament has its share of economic impacts on a variety of levels.”

For example, the CBS television network controlled the March Madness airwaves for years; in 2011 a landmark deal was made to allow Time Warner’s Turner to split the rights for the next 14 years at a cost of approximately $10.8 billion.  “Along with the steep price tag comes the revenues from broadcasting the tournament both on television and via other media outlets,” Investopedia said.  “Last year, CBS is estimated to have raked in about $620 million from TV advertising alone, while revenues from ‘non-traditional’ sources were up 20 percent.  Even with more people watching their favorite television shows in non-traditional ways, sporting events have still managed to keep live viewership growing, and there’s nothing quite like the nail-biting thrills of a last-second jumper.”

Then, there are the schools.  According to Forbes, “The NCAA distributes money from their media contracts to Division I conferences based on their performance in the Division I Men’s Basketball Championship over a six-year rolling period.  Independent institutions receive what’s called a ‘full unit share’ for every game they play in the tournament over the same rolling six-year period.  The basketball fund payments are sent to conferences in mid-April each year, and then conferences allocate the money as they see fit.  Some conferences equally split the revenue among all conference schools, while some provide a disproportionate share to the teams that were actually responsible for the ‘unit creation.’  One ‘unit’ is awarded to a conference for each game a member school participates in, except the championship game.  In 2009-10, each ‘basketball unit’ was approximately $222,206 for a total $167.1 million distribution.  The 2010-11 season was supposed to be the last year of the old TV contract, where CBS was slated to spend $710 million for media rights.  Based on this figure, the NCAA estimated that each ‘basketball unit’ would be roughly $239,664 for a total $180.5 million distribution.”

Sports tourism is another way that March Madness stimulates the economy.  Because the games are played in various locations across the country, teams and their fans spend money on hotels and restaurant meals, a positive economic impact on the host cities.  The biggest winner of 2011 is expected to be Houston, where estimates have direct spending by March Madness fans hitting $100 million.  Denver, Cleveland and New Orleans are also expected to reap significant economic benefits.

March Madness also offers Americans an opportunity to gamble.  According to Sportsbook.com, approximately $75 million was bet in Las Vegas on the tournament.  Office pools totaled more than $3 billion, with the cost of lost productivity estimated to be approximately $1.8 billion.

Where to Cut: Public Union Benefits or Defense?

Wednesday, March 16th, 2011

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s war on public-sector unions is being brought to the national stage by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Coburn challenged members of Congress following the release of an exhaustive study by the Government Accountability Office that found many overlapping and duplicate programs from education to defense that cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year.  The study found 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality, 47 for job training and employment, as well as hundreds of military clinics that could gain from consolidating administrative, management and clinical functions.

According to Coburn, a physician who some call “Dr. No” in the Senate because he places holds on legislation that he considers to be unconstitutional, “Government employees, although they’re fabulous and they overall do a great job, they produce no net economic benefit in our country.  Matter of fact, they produce a net negative economic benefit.  So if you take the drag off the economy by nonproductive implementation of capital what you’re going to see is that capital is then going to be put to use in something that is productive.  We’re not talking about letting go hundreds and thousands of employees — we’re talking about streamlining things.  Even if it were hundreds of thousands of employees, if we’re not borrowing another $300 billion additional next year because we streamlined some programs, that has some tremendous benefit to the economy as well.”

In particular, Coburn challenges federal job-training programs. “Job training is wasteful.  We put ‘help wanted’ on our government website and we’re getting people who have been through these programs who say they are a total joke and a total waste of time.  I want a job-training program that actually trains somebody to do something that they get a job for.  Why should we have 47 different separate job training programs?  Nobody understands them all.  If it’s a federal role — which I question – -then any job-training program ought to be designed so that you can measure its effectiveness.  None of the 47 has any metrics on it to measure effectiveness.”

Senator Coburn’s position could have an impact on his popularity, much as Wisconsin’s Scott Walker’s controversial stance on public-employee unions has lowered his ratings. A Rasmussen poll reveals that almost 60 percent of likely Wisconsin voters now disapprove of their governor’s performance, with 48 percent strongly disapproving.  The poll also finds that the state’s public school teachers are very popular with their fellow Badgers.  With 77 percent of those polled holding a high opinion of their educators, it is not particularly surprising that only 32 percent among households with children in the public school system approve of the governor’s performance.

The Giving Pledge Encourages Billionaires to Share Their Wealth

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

The Giving Pledge asks billionaires to donate 50 percent of their wealth to charity.  Two of the nation’s leading billionaire philanthropists are joining forces to encourage others to donate as much as half of their wealth to charities.  Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett are teaming to create the Giving Pledge, “an effort to invite the wealthiest individuals and families in America to commit to giving the majority of their wealth to the philanthropic causes and charitable organizations of their choice either during their lifetime or after their death.”

According to Patty Stonesifer, who is advising Gates and Buffett on the Giving Pledge, four additional families – real estate and construction’s Eli Broad, venture capitalist John Doerr, media entrepreneur Gerry Lenfest and former Cisco Systems chairman John Morgridge – are already on board.  Buffett, who has already pledged to donate 99 percent of his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said “At the latest, the proceeds from all of my Berkshire shares will be expended for philanthropic purposes by 10 years after my estate is settled.  Nothing will go to endowments.  I want the money spent on current needs,” according to Buffett.  Forbes magazine ranks Gates as the world’s second richest man with $53 billion and Buffett as third with $47 billion.  The United States is home to 403 billionaires.

The Giving Pledge is not accepting money itself.  Rather, it is asking billionaires to commit to giving their money to charity.  Although the campaign specifically targets billionaires, the Giving Pledge is “inspired by the example set by millions of Americans who give generously (and often at great personal sacrifice) to make the world a better place.”