Stadium and arena reseating is not a new phenomenon. Access to tickets and priority seating in stadiums and arenas are seen as a huge benefit to donors to athletic departments. Because the donor landscape is constantly changing, due in part to the ebbs and flows of on-field success among college athletic teams, supply and demand issues are a constant battle for athletic administrators. Therefore, schools undergo reseating projects in which tickets to seats in full stadiums and arenas are recalibrated, repriced, and reallocated to fans and donors as deemed necessary.

Colleges have long engaged in reseating when moving into new facilities or renovating existing ones. However, the conception of recurring reseating projects has only become popular in the past decade. With competition in collegiate athletics being exceedingly high, schools are implored to search for additional revenue through as many channels as possible to remain competitive. In the process, reseating offers schools the opportunity to reward donors who have contributed financially to the athletic department as well as to create or maintain an equitable seat allocation system (“Lane Stadium Reseating Plan,” 2011; “Nittany Lion Club,” 2011; Hawkeye Athletics, 2013). In addition, as a result of advances in technology, reseating projects can be done in an extremely efficient manner, making the process feasible for interested schools (Smith, 2013).

Even with tremendous incentive to conduct reseating projects, some schools are limited in their reseating abilities because of their seating structure. Issues ranging from the design of arenas to fans’ holding of lifetime seats prohibit schools from engaging in full-scale reseating projects. In most cases, the only options available to overcome these problems are renovating the facility or building a completely new one (Barron, 2015).

Although reseating is typically seen positively from the standpoint of an athletic department, a poorly planned or poorly executed reseating project has the potential to upset current donors to the point of alienation or even price them out of the stadium or arena completely. At worst, donors may sever their relationship with athletics, leaving a void in the department’s annual income. Within the arms race that is collegiate athletics, no department can afford to lose donors, especially if the school loses donors en masse as a result of actions within the department’s control.

Schools that have never previously engaged in a reseating are the most vulnerable to negative consequences because of at least two factors. First, the administrators planning and executing the reseating likely have little experience conducting such an endeavor with their population of fans. Second, and most significant, donors who have never been subjected to reseating are likely going to be more resistant to this change than donors who have experienced reseating in the past and have been educated on the rationale and logistical process.

Issue

ABC University is located in Iowa City, Iowa, with a total enrollment of 29,400 students. They are home to the Mammoths and have 16 intercollegiate athletic teams, with men’s basketball seen as their flagship sport. Over the past 10 years, the men’s basketball program at ABC University has not had a losing season. In addition, they have been to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) tournament seven out of the 10 seasons, making it to the Sweet Sixteen three times and the Elite Eight once. This has created an influx of demand for tickets to attend home games. ABC University is looking to build off of this recent success and restructure its seating plan for season tickets holders in their 6,500-seat basketball arena. ABC University currently sells about 65% of its tickets to season ticket holders. It should be noted that Iowa City, Iowa, has an approximate population of 161,000.

You have just recently been hired as the assistant athletic director for development at ABC University and put in charge of the reseating project. The athletic director has given you free reign in deciding a pricing package, including how many tickets are included at each price, determining seat selection order, and creating your own team of staff to get this done.

Questions

1. What are the top 2 groups of people you would like to consider and take care of in this plan? Use 1 of the ethical approaches to explain why these groups are of top priority (above others). Groups may include students, casual fan, new season ticket holders, long-time season ticket holders, suite holders, etc.

2. Knowing that season tickets holders are going to have a lot of questions about the new membership levels and pricing, how can ABC ensure that the information being given is consistent throughout? What is your communication plan and timeline?

3. Explain how will you determine the order in which season ticket holders get to choose their seats? How is this a fair and ethical way to approach this challenge?

4. Identify 3 aspects that other Universities implemented in their reseating plan that you want to implement in yours.