No taxation without representation, the rallying cry of our aggrieved Founding Fathers. Unwilling to pay for taxes they had no voice in implementing and incensed by the fact they were being represented “virtually” by people they didn’t know, the founding fathers rebelled against treatment they deemed intolerable.
They say history always repeats itself, and here we are, fortunate enough to have front row seats for a present day re-enactment.  I just wish King George would stop giggling from his balcony box.
With next week’s football vote, we will have the opportunity to virtually represent the student body of the future. Many of those casting votes will never have to pay a dime, and the majority will only have to pay a small portion of what it will cost to raise football from the dead. The real burden will fall to others who have no voice in this election.
What’s more, the nature of the vote and fee implementation schedule makes it easy for students to vote yes. It’s always easy to vote for something you don’t have to pay for and even easier for the people who came up with that Machiavellian scheme to spend the money. But before you vote, take some time to reflect on the risks you’ll be passing on to the next generation of ETSU students.
For football to be viable, it will be necessary to raise $1 million annually from community donations, in addition to the $2.7 million generated by student fees (and don’t forget the $15 million needed for the stadium).
If the university can’t raise that $1 million, there is no back-up plan. What happened in the past will likely be repeated.  Football will get cancelled, other programs will start to suffer, or most likely, a protracted combination of both. In 2003, football was hemorrhaging money. To keep it on life support, money was siphoned away from other programs.
How much money was football losing?
According to the athletic department’s statement of revenues and expenses, football lost $983,277, and brought in $40,000 less in ticket sales than men’s basketball in 2002. In 2003 the football program lost $978,512 and brought in roughly $50,000 less in ticket sales. You won’t find any of these numbers in the Football Task Force report.
On top of the financial risks are some of the misrepresentations contained in talking points provided by football boosters. One of the biggest whoppers is that voting yes will mean bringing back the marching band. Well, maybe it will, but according to the Football Task Force budget, not a single penny of the proposed fee increase will go to fund a marching band. The money for instruments will come from a hoped-for, end-of-year budget surplus and band members will have to compete for academic and performance scholarships just like the rest of us.
Then there is the claim that you only pay $75 per semester for athletics. In reality, $379 of ETSU’s maintenance fee also goes toward funding sports. Voting yes will add an additional $200, bringing the total yearly bill to $729.
Another talking point suggests that football will put us on the map. But will it? Thinking back, I grew up nearby, and I can remember being a Volunteer fan by the time I was in elementary school. But I never knew ETSU had a football team until I enrolled for classes (just after football’s demise). Maybe the “vigorous marketing” the task force promises will work better this time around.
Another argument is that football will instill a sense of pride in the student body — no concrete evidence on why football didn’t do that previously.
My favorite argument is that reviving football is going to help me get a job, and that an employer will immediately recognize my worth after realizing I come from a university with a football program. Don’t forget to mention your season-ticket-holder status at your next interview football fans. You’ll be a shoo in!
I could poke fun at booster talking points all day, but the fact is that this is a serious vote. Take the time to research the facts on your own. Students shouldn’t depend solely on a task force report that cherry picks only the most positive information, nor on editorials written to pillory those who put on a façade of impartiality. Consider the costs as well as the benefits, make up your own mind and vote.

Author