Women’s Sports Grow More Popular, But Their Real Value Isn’t Commercial

This essay was published in the July 19, 2015 edition of the Lancaster (PA) Sunday News We’re two weeks removed from the World Cup victory of the U.S. Women’s National Team, and a week past the 2015 U.S. Women’s Open in Lancaster.

In both tournaments, the competition was compelling and the brilliance of these world-class athletes was inspiring.

US SOccer Team World Cup photo

Predictably, an all too familiar conversation around women’s athletic events resurfaced. In the case of the women’s soccer team, the discussion centered on whether the World Cup victory will have a long lasting impact on the growth of the sport, particularly as it relates to the long-term viability of a women’s professional soccer league. And in the case of the US Open, the continued disparity of media coverage, sponsorships and financial support as compared to the men’s pro golf tour was highlighted.

In both cases, the issue at the crux of the debate ultimately relates to whether the commercial appeal of women’s sports will ever be on par with the men.

The short answer? Probably not.

But that’s not all bad. In the case of athletics, mimicking the men is not always a good idea.

That said, there is absolutely no question the commercial appeal and impact of elite women’s sports is going to continue to grow in every way -- from media coverage, to funding, to improved talent levels to increased corporate sponsorships. Despite the fact that there are still major gaps in funding and support in high schools when it comes to sports teams for boys and girls, much of this growth will be a result of the ongoing accumulative effect of Title IX, which was adopted as part of the 1972 Education Act and designed to prohibit gender discrimination in federally funded education programs.

While Title IX has, and will continue to drive the growth and development of women’s sports, there is another, and ultimately more important, factor at work. Specifically, women are making significant gains across a wide swath of society. More women are graduating from college and thus are being provided opportunities to avail themselves of more varied and lucrative careers. Women are also beginning to have more influence in executive suites and corporate boardrooms, a trend that will surely escalate. As a result, women, as an important sports, television and corporate demographic, will grow.

Why is this significant?

Professional sports is driven and underwritten largely by the business community through television, corporate dollars and sponsorships. As women achieve more power, influence and decision-making authority in the executive suites and corporate boardrooms, the amount of corporate support for women’s sports will naturally increase. That support will translate to more money, resources, visibility and commercial viability. In short, women are assuming more economic power and advertisers and corporate sponsors are taking notice.

While such progress may not be as rapid or comprehensive as many would like, it’s clear that women’s professional sports are going to continue to grow in public awareness, economic clout and cultural impact.

That begs the question. How are we, as parents, coaches, administrators and educators going to manage that growth?

The core argument for Title IX centered on the issue of how beneficial involvement in sports is for young girls. It is clear that in addition to its obvious fitness benefits, such involvement builds self-esteem and teaches lessons in teamwork, disciple and personal responsibility. Sports, when kept in the proper perspective, can impact young people in tremendously varied and important ways. Sports can change lives.

So while its’ entertainment value is nice, sports’ most potent and valuable characteristics are its fitness, educational and character building potential.

But make no mistake, as the amount of visibility, money and corporate involvement rises, so too will the pressure to win, complete with all of its side effects. As has happened with men’s athletics, this pressure to win, which generates more money, visibility and cultural influence, will result in an increased pressure to “professionalize” sports at younger and younger ages. In other words, as professional sports become more lucrative and visible, the pressure to win and generate the money to support and exploit that system will flow downward. And as sports become more about the end product (winning and the potential for fame and fortune) they become less about the process (fitness and education).

Yes, it is important that we continue to fight for equality and opportunity at the professional level. But rest assured, given the growing power and influence of women in our society, those opportunities will eventually be realized. But that progress must be managed. That means we’ll have to fight even harder to keep at bay, the inevitable downward push of professionalizing sports at younger and younger levels. Ultimately, youth sports are not about developing the next US Open Champion, World Cup goalie or even earning a college scholarship, but rather about teaching, molding, growing and developing young girls to be the business and community leaders of the future.

So while we should celebrate our World Cup victory and admire the brilliance of the professional athletes who graced our community, let’s not forget where the real value of women’s and men’s sports lies – in the youth levels, as a fitness and educational tool.

Football or Music? What’s the Best K-12 Investment

Kids playing music

This essay was published in the June 23, 2015 edition of EDUCATION WEEK.

In a perfect world, all high school activities would be fully funded. But to educators struggling to find the financial means to establish and pay for educational priorities, it is clear that we do not live in a perfect world.

Today’s schools are subjected to growing pressures from increased academic standards and the expectation that they will provide all of their students with an education worthy of the 21st century. These demands must be met, moreover, in a climate of sharply declining resources. The world is changing at breathtaking speed, and the challenges inherent in responding to that change are daunting. So, too, are the economic stresses on schools.

All that being the case, communities and school boards have to be more open, honest, thoughtful, and strategic in considering how to allocate scarce educational resources. When program cuts are necessary, priorities must be set and difficult choices made.

Traditionally, one choice has been between fielding elite athletics programs and maintaining enriching programs in the arts—with the arts usually being the first to suffer. Because the challenges and funding gaps for schools will only increase, such decision making will become more and more difficult.

In such an environment, the fundamental question we should ask about program funding is this: Which activities produce the best educational return on investment? And the first principle in making such decisions should be clear: We can no longer afford to sponsor activities based only on anecdotal evidence of benefit, or simply because we have always done so, or because a particular activity’s “lobby” screams the loudest.

The decisions also must be made with the recognition that the American economy has changed from one based on industrial might to one driven by technology, creativity, collaboration, and innovation. Simply put, every issue the nation faces, whether relating to health care, the environment, or geopolitics, bears the stamp—and holds the complexity—of an increasingly fast-paced and interconnected world. There is no way to effectively meet the challenges wrought by change and complexity without developing in our people greater creativity, social adaptability, and the ability to think more broadly and with greater depth.

“When considering the broadest impact on education over the longest period of time, music programs are far superior to football programs in return on dollars invested.”

What does this mean for decisionmaking on priorities and funding? First, we must rethink the criteria we use. For too long, educators have relied primarily on personal experiences and anecdotal evidence in making decisions about extracurricular programs. That is no longer enough. Decisions must also be driven by fact, data, and research. Fortunately, there is a growing research base on the impact of both football and music on student learning and engagement, brain function, academic environment, and health (both individual and public) to draw on.

Because a more thorough understanding of the wide range of issues surrounding these activities is imperative, I recently conducted a return-on-investment analysis of the effectiveness as educational tools of football (because it consumes by far the most resources of school athletic departments) and music (because it is the arts-program component with which I am most familiar).

The purpose was clear and simple: to present a thoughtful, thorough, and clear-eyed assessment of the relative value of football versus music programs in providing students with learning experiences most suited to the 21st century.

As a life-long athlete and musician who believes in the power of both sports and music to change people’s lives, this investigation has been a long and, at times, disconcerting journey. But here’s where my experience and the data have led.

“The effectiveness of sports as an educational tool has been steadily diminishing as athletic programs have become more about the end result—winning—and less about the process (learning).”

There are several areas—student engagement; development of positive character traits such as self-discipline, teamwork, and personal responsibility; and capacity to bring people together to build community—in which both football and music have similar positive impacts. There is little, if any, difference, for example, between the sacrifices made, lessons learned, and effort required as a sports-team member whose goal is winning games and a band member who is working to achieve a particular “sound.”

But from there, the similarities mostly end. When considering the broadest impact on education over the longest period of time, music programs are far superior to football programs in return on dollars invested.

Consider music’s pluses: the capacity to be a lifelong participatory-learning activity (football, for all but a select few, ends after high school); the fact that music is a universal language (football is uniquely American); its gender inclusiveness; a far lower cost-per-student ratio; the potential it offers as an essential platform for international and interdisciplinary studies; and its effectiveness in strengthening the brain’s neural activity and development (versus the possibility, if not the likelihood, of sustaining brain trauma).

Finally, the effectiveness of sports as an educational tool has been steadily diminishing as athletic programs have become more about the end result—winning—and less about the process (learning).

Given contemporary social and economic realities, many have questioned the wisdom of continuing to teach with curricular offerings and methods more suited to the industrial needs of the 20th century. Would it not also be wise to question the activities we sponsor at schools in light of current needs? Are we sacrificing in budget battles and narrowed thinking the most effective tools in our educational arsenal for teaching creativity? I believe we are. Music produces results much more in sync with a creative, information-based global economy and world community.

This is not to say that football does not have a place in our society. It does. Rather, the question is whether that place should continue to be within our education system.

In the end, the dialogue about these funding decisions must be more thorough, reasoned, honest, and data-driven. With increased expectations and decreased resources comes a smaller margin for error. We have to make every dollar count.

When dealing with the programs and activities that add so much to the human dimension of learning, we need the courage and commitment to go where logic, truth, and data take us. Despite the fact that some of the answers to our sports-versus-arts conundrum may be uncomfortable or inconvenient, educators should welcome the discussion. If we approach it honestly, the end result will be better schools, serving our children and communities more effectively. Isn’t that what we all want and what our nation needs?

Reinstating UAB Football - An Opportunity Lost

In an article published in the December 6, 2015 edition of The Birmingham (AL) News, I praised the University of Alabama – Birmingham’s board and leadership team for recognizing the fact that competitive and financial realities change and for responding to those changes by discontinuing their football program. I wrote that schools that refuse to recognize those changing realities risk damaging their ability to fully meet their educational missions. And that continuing to expect academic institutions to fall on a financial sword for athletics in the name of alumni ego and a national profile based on sports was irresponsible. I added that UAB leaders should be commended for providing something that has long been sorely lacking in the landscape of American higher education. Specifically, courage, leadership, common sense and educational vision as it applies to big-time college athletics. But after months of protests and public discussion, UAB announced that it will reinstate its football program for the 2016 season.

So much for UAB stepping up to provide much needed national educational leadership.

While UAB may have regained its football program, it has lost what could have been a historic opportunity to stand out as a true national leader as it applies to the relationship between big-time football and educational mission. The long-term educational return on investment associated with being an institution that clearly and emphatically stood firm, in the face of great resistance, for academic integrity, educational priorities and institutional responsibility would have been very powerful. Certainly far greater than the educational ROI of a few wins in football.

12-football-generic-1600x1200

Regardless, in the end, this decision is UAB’s to make. While it is perfectly understandable the UAB community to celebrate this news, they should also fully recognize that the issues that lead to the initial decision are not going to go away. The fact is, the trends and challenges that lead to the initial decision are not only going to continue, but they will become more pronounced in the years ahead.

Specifically, expectations of universities to provide an education worthy of the 21St Century are going to continue to rise. This, against a backdrop of declining funding, decreasing government support, increasing tuition, rising student debt and growing public cynicism regarding the value of a college degree. In such an environment, spending an enormous amount of time, effort, energy and resources on a football program will be harder to justify. Other than providing compelling entertainment, how exactly does sponsoring, at great expense, an FBS football team contribute to an institution’s ability to meet the rising expectations of providing students a world-class education?

Second, the cost associated with sponsoring football at the FBS level will continue to significantly outpace not only our national economy’s rate of inflation, but higher education’s rate of inflation as well. On top of that, the NCAA’s recent approval of measures to give more autonomy to the five powerhouse conferences (Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12, ACC and Big 12), to allow them to spend even more on athletics will undoubtedly significantly increase the competitive distance between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. And make no mistake, UAB is clearly a “have not” in the FBS universe. How exactly is that a strategic and educationally sound path forward?

Finally, there is a moral issue that simply will not go away. There is going to come a point in time where the evidence of the debilitating effects of football participation become so clear and the physical costs to young people so great that public perception of schools that are willing to “sacrifice” students in the name of athletic glory and financial gain may shift. In short, the public may come to wonder how an educational institution can not simply sponsor, but celebrate, an activity that has such a strong possibility of inflicting serious physical damage for public entertainment and branding purposes. The hypocrisy of supposedly being about the education of young people while continuing to invest significant amounts of money, time, effort and emotion in an activity that scrambles their brains simply for public entertainment will be plain for all to see. How exactly does that advance an institution of higher education’s mission?

Again, this is a decision for the UAB community. But be clear. The forces that lead to the decision in the first place are not going to disappear.

So all of you who are raising the millions of dollars needed to pull UAB football up off the mat, enjoy the moment. But don’t enjoy it for too long. You need to get back to work raising even more money and writing even bigger checks to keep it all afloat.

Good luck with that.

You Simply Can’t Put Lipstick on a Pigskin

deflated football

The following essay was published in the Lancaster, PA Sunday News on April 19, 2015

On March 29, LNP devoted significant space to a discussion of concussions in youth sports. While the writers presented some interesting perspectives, there is far more to the story.

This is evidenced in a recent report that USA Football, which is funded by the NFL and various corporate sponsors, including ESPN, has invested in developing and conducting “Mom’s Clinics” throughout the country. The clinics target moms, many of whom decide whether their children play tackle football, to reassure them that the game can be played safely.

Ironically, another article reported the results of a new study of NFL retirees that found those who began playing football when they were younger than 12 years old had a higher risk of developing memory and thinking problems later in life.

While both groups scored below average on many tests, those who began playing before age 12 scored roughly 20 percent lower than those who began playing after age 12.

While we should applaud the efforts of those who are attempting to make the game safer, it’s almost laughable the extent to which the NFL believes that the growing awareness of the violent nature of the game is something that can be pasted over with promotional campaigns to convince the public that the game is suitably safe.

Seemingly every few days, another revelation from a study or comments from a former player remind us of the brutal and debilitating nature of the game. When people such as President Barack Obama, LeBron James and football great Mike Ditka say they would not let their children play tackle football, it is clear that something major is going on.

It is becoming increasingly clear that youth, junior high and high school football, as currently played, will see a steady decline in participation and sponsorship. For example, Pop Warner, the nation’s largest youth football program, saw participation drop 9.5 percent between 2010 and 2012. Yes, marginal progress is being made in the increased vigilance, testing and return-to-play standards.

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to implement such standards and programs across the wide collection of loosely regulated youth leagues and underfunded school systems in which the game is played.

The question is whether these efforts to transform an extremely dangerous game to a point where it is “acceptably safe” can occur before the growing evidence of the high risk becomes cemented in public opinion.

To date, the primary response to safety concerns has been a call to increase investment in concussion testing and assessment programs, coaches training requirements, increased medical staffing and improved equipment. As evidence of the risk grows, it will be increasingly difficult for youth leagues and schools to obtain liability insurance. The number of companies willing to underwrite the risk will decline and the cost to insure against those liabilities will skyrocket. Where are school districts going to find the money for these additional, expensive safeguards?

Further, the explosion of media coverage relating to brain trauma will lead to a pronounced increase in awareness and concern among parents, community leaders and school administrators that football, as currently played, is simply too risky to sponsor or to allow their children to play.

But even if the “damage dial” could be scaled back from nine on a scale of 10, the danger will still be too great. The very nature and core of the game is rooted in violence. The ability to change the basic culture of the game is marginal, at best. As a result, the force of the “too much risk, not enough reward” argument will simply begin to overwhelm the well-intentioned efforts to make the game acceptably safe.

Simply put, the costs associated with making the game suitably safe — which frankly, is impossible — are going to place a financial and liability burden on school systems that will be unsustainable.

There is also a moral issue at stake. The role of our schools is to strengthen and build young people’s brains. That being the case, how can a school continue to justify and invest significant amounts of money, time, effort and emotion in an activity that endangers them?

These revelations have raised the stakes in the debate regarding the proper role of football in our schools and communities. The issue is, at what point do the long-term physical and health risks to participants overwhelm the diminishing educational and social benefits?

In short, the evidence of the likelihood of young people sustaining brain trauma in football has become so strong that it demands attention and discussion by every board of education in the nation.

This is serious stuff. And the long-term implications for the role that football will play in our schools and communities are significant.

In the end, the questions we should all be asking ourselves are these: Is the role of our schools to sponsor activities that place young people’s brains at grave risk for the entertainment of the community? Or, stated more plainly, should our schools be sponsoring and, indeed, celebrating an activity that scrambles young people’s brains?

Football vs. Music: This is About Winning

“Why are you bashing football?” That’s a question I’ve been asked quite often, dating back the publication my book, Sports: The All-American Addiction in 2002. And the frequency of being asked that question has multiplied since the recent publication of “Ball or Bands: Football vs. Music as an Educational and Community Investment.”

I’d like to set the record straight.

This isn’t about bashing football. And it’s not about tearing down athletics. In fact, it’s hardly about athletics at all.

This is about education.

And it is about winning.

It’s about winning what is one of our nation’s most important battles. Specifically, it’s about the “game” of effectively preparing our children to compete in today’s increasingly competitive global economy and world community. It is about making certain that every educational resource at our disposal performs at its maximum level of efficiency and effectiveness, including extracurricular activities such as football and music.

The importance of winning is something that every coach, athletic administrator and sports fan fully understands. Every coach knows that to win, it is imperative that they continually work at evaluating players as to their ability and effectiveness in contributing to the team’s overall goal of winning. Coaches also understand that a player’s relative value to the team’s success can increase or decrease as competitive circumstances (level of competition, style of play, etc.) change. Based on those factors, a coach will award playing time. In other words, coaches invest in and allot the most playing time to those athletes who contribute the most to the team’s overall goal of winning.

We live in a world of rising standards and expectations regarding what constitutes an education worthy of the 21st century. Schools have to meet these rising standards in an environment of declining resources. It is critical that our educational system responds to these challenges because American children are no longer guaranteed the best jobs in the world. Today, American children will be competing against children from all over the world for the best jobs of the future.

In short, our educational system is in an extremely competitive contest to prepare our children to succeed in the increasingly competitive, interrelated global economy and world community and, in the process, to keep America economically strong and vibrant. This is a high stakes contest. It is a contest we must win. And the definition of “winning” is schools that demand and produce educational excellence and academic achievement.

So, not unlike a coach who continually evaluates the effectiveness and efficiency of each of his or her players in contributing to the overall goal of winning games, community and educational leaders as well as parents must continually evaluate every component of the educational process and system for academic effectiveness and efficiency.

Similar to a coach reducing the playing time of an athlete whose contribution to the team’s overall success has diminished in favor of another player whose contribution to the team’s success has increased, so too must we evaluate and act accordingly in the case of the contribution of extracurricular activities to the academic mission of the institution.

That is what Ball or Bands is about. Like a coach who evaluates each of his or her players, assessing their relative strengths and weaknesses and determining who provides the best opportunity to win games, I did the same assessment and evaluation of two educational “team members” (football programs and music programs) to determine which provides the best opportunity to help our schools win the game of providing our children a world class education.

So here’s the challenge. If during the process we find that either of these activities is successfully meeting its educational purposes, will we have the vision to invest more heavily in it? But what if one or the other is not? What if it is determined that investment in one or the other as an extracurricular activity brings a greater return on educational dollar invested? What should our school boards do? What should we as parents and tax paying citizens, do? Will we have the courage to make what may be very difficult and unpopular decisions?

The results of my assessment, an evaluation that incorporated not only anecdotal evidence derived from years of experience in both fields, but also hard data and research is outlined in Ball or Bands. It is an honest and clear-eyed assessment. And these are the results.

There are several areas, such as student engagement and the development of positive character traits such as discipline, team(band)work, personal responsibility and their respective capacities to bring people together to build community, where both football and music provide similarly positive impacts. For example, there is little, if any, difference between the sacrifices made, lessons learned and effort required as a member of a team with the goal of winning games and of a member of a band working to achieve a particular sound.

But from there, the similarities mostly end. When considering the broadest, most effective impact over the longest period of time, from an educational return on dollars invested, music programs are far superior to football programs.

From music’s capacity to be a life long participatory learning activity (for all but a select few, football ends after high school) to the fact that it is the universal language (football is uniquely American), to it’s inclusiveness (everyone, versus only boys, can participate), to far lower cost per student ratio to the potential if offers as a platform for international and interdisciplinary studies (essential for a modern day education), to its effectiveness in strengthening brain neural activity and development (versus the possibility, if not likelihood, of sustaining brain trauma). And finally, sports’ effectiveness as an educational tool has been steadily decreasing as it has become more about the end result (winning) and less about the process (education).

In fact the relative value and effectiveness of music versus football as an educational tool is so dramatic, that if we were scoring it like a football game, it would be a rout, with a final score of Music 52 and Football 14.

Yes, the differences are that stark.

Here’s another way to look at it. If I was one of two captains choosing up sides to play and win a pick-up basketball game and had first choice, I’d choose the player who gives my team the best chance of winning the game. If the game is education and the goal is to build the best school system to achieve the goal of providing our children with a world-class education and the choice was between building my school around a first rate football program versus a first rate music program, the choice would be absolutely crystal clear. Investing in music programs is infinitely more likely to contribute to the goals of educational excellence and preparing our children to compete successfully in the twenty-first century economy and world community than investing in a football program.

Granted, in a perfect world, all extracurricular activities would be fully funded. But with politicians and education leaders making it perfectly clear that for the foreseeable future education funding will be significantly reduced, it’s painfully clear that we no longer live in a perfect world. That being the case, school districts will be forced to engage in the very difficult debate regarding how to allocate increasingly scarce extracurricular dollars. In such an environment, the fundamental question is which extracurricular activities garner the best educational return on investment?

So this really isn’t about bashing football. It is about education. And it is about winning.

Despite the fact that some of the answers found in Ball or Bands may be uncomfortable or inconvenient, we should welcome this discussion and analysis because, if we approach it honestly, the end result will be better schools serving our children and communities more effectively. In the end, isn’t that what we all want and what our nation needs?

Football vs. music: Which is better for students?

PUBLISHED IN PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER POSTED: Wednesday, February 4, 2015  View Online Article Here By John Gerdy

---

Given that education reform was the biggest issue in the recent campaign, Gov. Wolf has a mandate. The question is, will he have the vision and courage to use it?

School district fiscal realities often force program cuts. Thus, the new governor must call for an honest examination of the role football plays in our schools, and how that team sport compares with other extracurricular activities, especially music, in providing the most effective educational return on investment.

In an environment of declining resources, schools face growing pressure to meet increased standards and expectations. Thus, when program cuts are necessary, tough choices must be made. Traditionally, the choice is often between athletics and arts, with the latter often being the first to go.

But we can no longer sponsor activities based only on anecdotal evidence or tradition. Decisions of such magnitude must be driven by data and a thoughtful, thorough, and clear-eyed analysis.

America's economy has changed from one based on industrial might to one driven by technology, creativity, collaboration, and innovation. Every issue we face, whether related to health care, the environment, or geopolitics, is becoming more complex in this fast-paced and interconnected world. To succeed, we must push a corresponding increase in creativity among our students.

Fortunately, there is a growing amount of research on the impact of football and music on brain function, learning, and health.

In several areas, such as student engagement and teaching character, football and music provide similarly positive impacts. There is little difference between the sacrifices made, lessons learned, and effort required for a team to score a touchdown and what goes into working together to achieve a particular sound.

But the similarities end there.

When considering the broadest, most effective impact over the longest period of time, from an educational standpoint, music programs are far superior to football.

Music has the capacity to be a lifelong participatory activity (for most players, football ends after high school). Music is the universal language (football is uniquely American). Boys and girls can participate in music equally, and such programs have a far lower cost per student compared with football. Music offers great potential as a platform for international and interdisciplinary studies (essential for a modern-day education), and is effective in strengthening brain function (vs. the possibility of brain trauma). Finally, football's effectiveness as a learning tool is compromised as it becomes about winning rather than the process of education.

In short, music produces educational results that are much more in line than football with the challenges presented by a creative, information-based, global economy. Or, stated another way, should the role of our education system be to develop brains or to scramble them?

Does football have a place in our society? Yes. The question, however, is whether that place should continue to be within our educational system or in a private, club sport system.

Let's hope Wolf will take advantage of his education-reform mandate to raise this difficult but important issue. We should welcome the discussion and analysis that would ensue, even if some of the answers might be uncomfortable or inconvenient. If we approach the question honestly, the end result will be better schools serving our children and communities more effectively. Isn't that what we all want and what our nation needs?

John Gerdy (johngerdy.com), of Conestoga, Pa., is the founder of Music For Everyone and the author of "Ball or Bands: Football vs. Music as an Educational and Community Investment." johngerdy@aol.com

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20150204_Football_vs__music__Which_is_better_for_students_.html#p7rTUE1IWRQzphFC.99