After securing a media rights deal for women's college basketball, the NCAA president must do more

The long-awaited media rights deal for women's college basketball is here. Despite valuing the sport at $65 million annually in an eight-year partnership with ESPN, the news was met with familiar disappointment in coaches' offices across the country. Publicly, coaches will applaud the progress the NCAA has made, but privately, they will be watching NCAA President Charlie Baker's next moves.

With women's basketball gaining momentum in recent years and its broadcast deal expiring at an opportune moment, coaches have made public pushes for the NCAA to put its women's basketball media rights deal on the free market. Some have even received signals from the NCAA that a stand-alone deal, much like the men's NCAA tournament, would be the way forward.

But it's fair to say, even with their best efforts, their hopes were not high at all. Decades of feeling like the NCAA had pushed women's basketball to the side have confirmed that. So, they weren't impressed when they learned Thursday that women's basketball was among 39 other championships.

They realize it's not a terrible deal. As part of an eight-year, $950 million deal with ESPN, the women's tournament's $65 million annual valuation is 10 times what it was worth in the previous deal. The commitment in the contract to put the title game on ABC is a guarantee that didn't exist before. There is undoubtedly reason to celebrate the progress achieved. The coaches know that making a deal with a different media partner that has never been to a tournament like March Madness would have been too risky. Even if the women's tournament had been spun off and put in the free market, and even if someone else had thrown $80 million a year into the NCAA for the women's tournament, would the extra $15 million have been worth the risk of handing 63 games to a network? Or a platform without proven success in handling such a huge event? It's a fair discussion, but it was also an understandable reason for Baker to be wary of any suitors not named ESPN.

The deal is solid. But how “good” this particular deal is will depend entirely on what he does next. Because while the ink may be dry on this contract, Baker could make a couple of incremental moves that would open up new alternative revenue streams for women's basketball, pushing the sport even further and allowing women's basketball to establish its own value outside of the package deal. .

First, it can ensure the distribution of units to women's basketball. For the men's tournament, this payout has been around since the early 1990s, with money sent to conferences for teams that participate and win throughout March Madness. Last season alone, the SEC took in nearly $34 million for men's teams despite the fact that it didn't have a single team in the Elite Eight. The women of the SEC, who had two Final Four teams in South Carolina and LSU (the eventual national champion)? They received exactly $0 for their participation and victories in the tournament.

Alexis Morris and her LSU teammates celebrate the national title win over Iowa State. (C. Morgan Engle/NCAA Photo via Getty Images)

These units ensure not only conferences but also incentivize programs to invest in women's basketball teams, players, coaches and programs. With this new deal, Baker says conversations about units are on the table.

“There's a real commitment to creating a program, and I'm not going to talk more about what the details of that might look like because there are a lot of different ways to structure it,” Baker said. “I think this is something a lot of people are committed to, and we're very excited about it.”

Second, and beyond that, but just as important, Baker needs to open up a third level of corporate partnerships for the NCAA tournament. In a previous agreement between the NCAA and CBS/Turner Sports, the NCAA ceded its negotiating power for its corporate sponsorships at tournaments to CBS/Turner Sports. The problem with that is that CBS/Turner Sports broadcasts exactly one NCAA tournament: the men's NCAA tournament. They have no vested interest in brand partnerships that don't directly benefit them.

They created two tiers – Corporate Champions and Corporate Partners – and left it at that. Industry sources have made it clear that the barriers to entry for even the lower tier (corporate partners) are much higher than most brands can afford, leaving money on the table for companies that may have a more unique focus within the sport but don't have the capacity to. Budget to compete with the AT&Ts or Marriotts of the world.

Coaches and media experts explained that the third tier would open up an alternative revenue stream that did not need to dispense with any previous relationships established by CBS/Turner Sports (assuming there was no competitive nature between the manufacturers already). Deals), instead allowing other companies to create agreements with individual sports or groups of leagues. Companies only interested in specific leagues — such as women's basketball — would be allowed to invest in women's basketball only, pushing the NCAA and the market to see the value in it as a single entity apart from other leagues.

Think of it like an F1 race car. The logos of the car's biggest sponsors may be prominently displayed – on the rear wing and sides of the car – but almost every other part is also branded. The steering wheel, end panels, and nose all have smaller brands that paid less money to put their name on that car.

Why can't the same apply to brand deals for 39 other leagues? Why not explore revenue streams for other sports? Why hand that duty over to a network that has no interest in seeing women's basketball, gymnastics or baseball grow? Why leave all this money in the hands of potential investors and partners?

And while the NCAA says it's “still working” on it, coaches will sigh, hearing a refrain they've heard too many times before. For years, the biggest names in the sport have implored the NCAA to let women's basketball prove its worth. And all too often, they've heard a group of skeptics claim that their sport isn't profitable, only to respond: But has the NCAA actually tried to make money from our sports? Have they ever gone out of the way to allow the sport to grow as it should?

The answer is no.

For decades, the NCAA ensured that only men's basketball was allowed to use the “March Madness” branding. Their tournament had more matches. Their rulers made more money. Inequities were highlighted during the 2021 tournament, allowing audiences to see what those working in women's basketball have known for years. The NCAA's independent investigation into gender inequality, known colloquially as the Kaplan Report, showed that former NCAA President Mark Emmert and the NCAA for decades pushed women's basketball aside, and other high-growth sports, To focus on the cash cows of men's basketball. and football.

Baker has only been in office for less than a year, and he played no role in creating this decades-long tension and mistrust. But now he's the one charged with moving the NCAA and women's basketball forward together. They need each other.

Make no mistake: women's basketball is at an inflection point. And with the state of interest and the game right now, there's a chance the sport will never have to hear the phrase “but women's college basketball doesn't make money” again. And for the coaches watching Baker's every move, that might sound better than the final buzzer of the national title game.

But there is more work to be done. Baker has yet to hit the game-winner. But it's as if he has the ball in his hands with 10 seconds left, and women's basketball is watching to see if he can be trusted to make that shot.

(Photo by Charlie Baker: David J. Griffin/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)