On Monday morning, McGill University’s athletics department made the announcement that it would be discontinuing 15 sports teams. Viewed through a lens of financial management, the news of a respected institution eliminating half of its athletic offerings might seem like a positive development.
However, the context is essential. Earlier this year, in February, McGill disclosed its struggle with a $15 million budget deficit. The following month, the university announced plans to cut 100 jobs to alleviate financial pressures.
Unlike the United States, where major NCAA programs rely on “revenue sports” such as football and men’s basketball to generate significant income for their institutions, Canadian college football does not bring in billions. The decision by McGill suggests that less prominent teams often merely consume resources.
If you support austerity measures and the idea of achieving prosperity through cuts, you might embrace this decision. You may have even removed walking from your daily activities, as comfortable shoes come with a cost, and simply hitting 10,000 steps yields no financial return.
For health?
Don’t be ridiculous.
If the reward isn’t immediate and monetary, it is often disregarded.
This perspective resonates with many, but for those of us who appreciate the inherent value of sports and believe that high-level achievement requires a comprehensive support system, McGill’s significant reduction appears shortsighted. While trimming excess can enhance efficiency, eliminating essential components can weaken the foundation, potentially hindering elite Canadian sports.
To summarize, the announcement on Monday followed an internal audit in 2024 and a review by KPMG earlier this year, both indicating that McGill’s athletics department required reorganization.
“What we discovered is that many of our teams lack the resources to thrive, possibly because our program is too extensive,” explained Perry Karnofsky, McGill’s director of services, wellness programs, and facility operations, in an interview with the Montreal Gazette.
McGill University is cutting 25 clubs and varsity teams across 15 sports as it overhauls its athletics’ program. The school cited lack of budget, resources and space for the cuts. Student athletes say they are angered by the news and that the decision-making process lacked transparency.
In McGill’s defense, they find themselves in a challenging position, as described by Puerto Rican singer Nino Sagarra, “Between The Sword and The Wall.”
The province is increasing tuition fees for Canadian students from outside Quebec and reallocating a portion of the tuition paid by international students, while nationwide restrictions on international enrollment also impact McGill.
Furthermore, McGill stands in contrast to Indiana University, which recently granted football coach Curt Cignetti an eight-year contract extension worth $93 million USD, shortly after announcing cuts to approximately 100 academic programs. At least McGill recognizes that it is a university with sports teams, not the other way around.
Given this situation, it is understandable that leadership might prioritize certain sports as less important.
But Logger Sports? Sailing?
Self-sustaining club programs.
Nordic Skiing?
Another self-funded club that trains on a municipal ski hill adjacent to campus, raising questions about the actual financial burden eliminated by dropping them.
Why eliminate men’s volleyball when many universities have multiple basketball courts, all equipped with volleyball lines and net setups?
And why discard a track and field program with a 125-year history when McGill already possesses an indoor facility at the Tomlinson Fieldhouse and an outdoor track at Molson Stadium? The ramifications, as noted by two-time Olympic champion Andre De Grasse in the Gazette, are both symbolic and tangible.
“What’s occurring at McGill has implications for the entire country,” he stated. “When a top university discontinues a program like this, it sends a detrimental message to current and prospective athletes and university leaders nationwide.”
This situation points to a more profound issue facing high-level amateur sports in Canada.
While Canadians lament the exodus of talent to the U.S., they simultaneously allow local opportunities to diminish.
The Montreal native, an Olympic gold medallist and Team Canada’s chef de mission for the 2024 Olympics in Paris, says a solution could have been found to avoid McGill University’s decision to cut 25 sports teams due to budget concerns.
We have allowed regular-season U Sports football to disappear from national television, yet we wonder why mainstream sports fans are less engaged with the Vanier Cup.
In Toronto, we allocate a quarter-billion taxpayer dollars to host a few World Cup matches, while the provincial government attempts to divert raw sewage into a waterway frequented by rowers, kayakers, and swimmers.
McGill’s recent decision aligns with the mixed messages Canadians consistently receive regarding the significance of sports, and how effectively nations cultivate champions. Canadians are results-oriented, yet they often hesitate to invest in the journey.
This journey entails recognizing that the rewards may not always be immediate or solely financial.
Long-term losses
At the university level, varsity athletics are not merely about competition or business; they serve as a potent marketing asset. Experts in sports business refer to this phenomenon as The Flutie Effect, named after quarterback Doug Flutie’s Heisman Trophy-winning season, which caused a surge in applications to Boston College.
KPMG is also aware of the branding advantages sports can offer. The firm sponsors a golf tour, various professional golfers, and tennis player Jessica Pegula, even while advising McGill to drop several sports.
Sports can energize alumni, creating excitement among former students. If you doubt this, consider the 1993 University of Toronto Varsity Blues football team, which was slated for elimination the year prior due to cost-saving measures. In response, a group of alumni spearheaded a fundraising effort to preserve the team, which ultimately led to an unexpected victory in the 29th Vanier Cup.
For prestigious institutions aiming to attract a select group of recruits, a strong array of sports can be the deciding factor between securing that top candidate or losing them to a competitor.
In a previous life, I was a prominent high school football player and an average sprinter with multiple recruitment letters—several from McGill—considering various aspects as I chose my university. Geography. Academics. Cultural compatibility. Non-football extracurricular activities.
I opted for Northwestern because, as the child of two South-Siders, the allure of four years near Chicago was too enticing. However, had I no connections to that city, I might have stayed in Canada, making McGill a strong contender alongside U of T. Back then, it would have presented a genuine dilemma, but if I were graduating this spring, I would have chosen the Varsity Blues because they have a track team, while McGill would not.
In my specific situation, perhaps it’s addition by subtraction. Why would McGill require a wisecracking kid with 4.4 speed but hands as unreliable as his French? And if you’ve ever viewed a book contract, you understand that aspiring writers don’t contribute much to a school’s fundraising efforts. Want to enhance your endowment (McGill’s is $2.04 billion)? Don’t seek assistance from anyone who writes for a living.
However, next year, a better student and athlete than I was will be considering a prestigious, high-paying career, contemplating attending McGill … but they run track or play field hockey. So they choose another university, and if all goes well, they may find themselves among that school’s distinguished alumni, while McGill, focused on its finances, has dropped men’s volleyball.
This approach saves some money but lacks justification.
Eliminating teams to reduce expenses also restricts opportunities and access to talent, which underscores another aspect of these cuts.
They are detrimental.
