During the excitement of last year’s NCAA March Madness Tournament, WTW’s NCAA and Pro Sports Compensation & Governance Practice introduced its proprietary NCAA compensation database with Beyond the madness, an article that explored performance bonuses for men’s college basketball head coaches in the NCAA tournament.
In this edition, we examine the key elements that make up a college basketball head coach’s contract as well as compare the compensation of coaches in men’s and women’s programs with program revenue. Pay equity is making headlines around the world, and the arena of college basketball coaching should be no different. Our goal is to understand how the head coaches of women’s basketball programs are paid when compared with their men’s basketball counterparts.
In terms of actual dollars, head coaches of women’s basketball programs are indeed paid less than head coaches in men’s basketball; however, when adjusting for revenue as a pay-for-performance measure, women’s basketball coaches are generally paid similarly or better than men’s basketball coaches as a percentage of revenue. Further, when looking at gender of the coach within women’s basketball, female head coaches appear to be paid more competitively than their male peers, based on our sample. Figure 1 shows that as a percentage of revenue generated, maximum fixed compensation (base salary + annual guaranteed pay) is larger for women’s basketball coaches than men’s.
| Women's basketball | Men's basketball | |
|---|---|---|
| % of revenue | % of revenue | |
| 25th %ile | 14% | 17% |
| Median | 29% | 24% |
| 75th %ile | 80% | 32% |
Using revenue to assess pay equity is an interesting, if imperfect, methodology, since women’s basketball programs generally trail men’s basketball in revenue; however, on average, women's college basketball programs are continuing to see growth in program revenue. While the majority of programs generate just under $5 million annually, an increasing number of women's programs are generating over $5 million, with some even reaching the impressive milestone of $10 million in revenue. In comparison, a substantial portion of men's programs also generated over $10 million in revenue, highlighting the potential for growth and success in both programs and, specifically, the potential for revenue growth in women’s basketball.
| Element | Women's basketball (WBB) | Men's basketball (MBB) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 58 | 60 | ||
| NCAA basketball program revenue | ||||
| Count | % of WBB | Count | % of MBB | |
| $0 to $5 million | 54 | 93% | 21 | 35% |
| $5 to $10 million | 4 | 7% | 13 | 22% |
| $10 to $15 million | - | 0% | 14 | 23% |
| $15 to $20 million | - | 0% | 6 | 10% |
| $20 million+ | - | 0% | 6 | 10% |
| By conference | ||||
| Big 12* | 6 | 10% | 6 | 10% |
| Big Ten* | 9 | 16% | 10 | 17% |
| Pac-12* | 5 | 9% | 8 | 13% |
| ACC* | 6 | 10% | 6 | 10% |
| SEC* | 6 | 10% | 5 | 8% |
| CUSA | 6 | 10% | 8 | 13% |
| MAC | 9 | 16% | 7 | 12% |
| Other** | 11 | 19% | 10 | 17% |
*Conferences that make up the Power 5
**Other conferences include the AAC and MWA
| Women's basketball | Men's basketball | |
|---|---|---|
| % of revenue | % of revenue | |
| 25th %ile | 27% | 24% |
| Median | 45% | 32% |
| 75th %ile | 147% | 43% |
We examined the three main components of head coach pay: base salary, annual guaranteed pay (e.g., additional pay for media appearances or speaking engagements) and maximum annual incentive opportunity (e.g., variable incentives tied to factors such as student academic performance, post-season performance and in-season wins). While actual pay is critical, we also examined the pay of women’s and men’s basketball head coaches as a percentage of respective program revenue. We ultimately found that head coaches of women’s basketball programs, when controlling for program revenue, were generally paid similarly or more than their men’s basketball program counterparts as a percentage of revenue. Notably, the most striking pay gap in favor of women’s coaches appears at the 75th percentile.
While maximum fixed compensation of head coaches of men’s programs was higher from a dollar amount than for head coaches of women’s programs at each notable percentile, the story is different when maximum fixed compensation is calculated as a percentage of program revenue. As shown in Figure 1, the maximum fixed compensation as a percentage of program revenue is 29% at the median for women’s basketball head coaches, while men’s basketball coaches earn 24% of program revenue in maximum fixed compensation. While this finding is significant, the difference is more drastic at the 75th percentile where women’s basketball head coaches earn 80% of program revenue in maximum fixed compensation compared with 32% for men’s basketball head coaches.
Though head coach maximum fixed compensation is lucrative on its own, a significant portion of maximum target total direct compensation comes from various non-guaranteed incentives. It is apparent that coaches of men’s basketball programs have substantially higher earnings potential relative to coaches of women’s basketball programs; however, maximum target total direct compensation as a percentage of program revenue shows that women’s basketball head coaches have the potential to earn more as a percentage of their program’s revenue than their men’s basketball head coach counterparts.
Notably, some women’s basketball head coaches have the opportunity to earn more than their respective program revenue (147% of program revenue at the 75th percentile), meaning that a significant number of the total sampled women’s basketball head coaches have a maximum target direct compensation opportunity that is nearly one and a half times greater than their program revenue (note, 90% of the 20 coaches are in the Power Five). While head coaches of men’s basketball programs often earn more than head coaches of women’s programs, they earn a smaller portion of the revenue generated by their team. While this is due to a number of factors, recent TV deals will likely exacerbate this, particularly in the Power Five. For example, the Big 10 agreed to a multiyear, multibillon-dollar TV deal in late 2022.
We also sought to understand if, within women’s basketball programs, male and female coaches were paid equitably. Although programs with female head coaches appear to generate lower revenue at the median than programs coached by men, female coaches in our sample were actually paid more than their male counterparts in every pay category, in addition to pay as a percentage of program revenue. Given that there are essentially no female head coaches of men’s basketball programs, we were unable to compare coach gender across men’s and women’s programs.
| Women's basketball | ||
|---|---|---|
| Female head coach | Male head coach | |
| Count | 38 | 20 |
| Median program revenue | $1,283,997 | $1,596,366 |
| Median Base Salary + Guaranteed Bonus | $497,500 | $270,404 |
| Median Maximum Total Compensation | $817,500 | $485,154 |
| Median Base Salary + Guaranteed Bonus as % of revenue | 49% | 23% |
| Median Maximum Total Compensation as % of revenue | 62% | 40% |
Finally, we analyzed whether there was a potential correlation between head coach pay and their program’s revenue. Men’s basketball head coach maximum target total direct compensation appears to have a reasonable correlation to program revenue, while women’s basketball head coach maximum total compensation has little correlation to program revenue. We observed a similar theme for total guaranteed compensation.
Women’s basketball head coaches are indeed paid less than their men’s basketball counterparts. It is encouraging that women’s basketball head coaches do appear to be paid similarly, if not better, when accounting for program revenue; however, it is important to note and caveat that this has more to do with the smaller denominator (program revenue) than it does with actual pay. In addition, female coaches appear to be paid on par with or higher than their male counterparts within women’s basketball, both in terms of absolute dollars and as a percentage of program revenue.
We cannot say that there is necessarily equity in coaches’ pay, as the clear disparity in revenue of men’s versus women’s basketball is difficult to reconcile; however, we are encouraged that while absolute dollar-for-dollar pay still has room for improvement, universities and the NCAA appear to continue their investment in infrastructure, including increasing exposure for women’s basketball and corporations engaging in more sponsorship deals with women’s basketball programs. These investments will be key to bridging the gap between men’s and women’s program revenue and, with hope, will continue to move the pay of women’s basketball coaches more in line with the pay of men’s basketball.
