State Athletic Officials Agree to Marketing Plan

Ending more than two years of acrimonious debate, state athletic officials on Friday passed legislation they hope will generate more revenue for embattled high school sports teams.

The vote, a voice tally, was 125-0 and took the Federated Council of the California Interscholastic Federation only three minutes to complete. This after months of contentious wrangling that prompted talk that the Southern Section, the largest and wealthiest of the state’s 10 sections, might break away on its own.

The Southern Section generated about $450,000 in marketing revenue last year, more than any other section and about the same as the state CIF office in Oakland.

“A year ago I would never believe that we would have been where we are today,” said Bob Wallace, chairman of the economic viability committee and president-elect of the council. “Marketing has changed over the years. We’re taking a different direction.”

The bill allows sections to sell or retain title sponsors, a point originally opposed by the state CIF office but championed by the Southern Section, which has a $165,000-a-year title sponsorship deal with Toyota. It also sets pricing levels at the section and state levels and includes a 5% “co-title sponsor” tax that the state will collect and redistribute to “all 10 CIF sections and the CIF state office.”

The Southern Section opposes the tax, as well as some of the rock-hard price levels, saying that some longtime clients might not accept those terms. But the bill establishes an appeal process, and Southern Section Commissioner Jim Staunton said that his office chose to support the package and appeal its concerns rather than vote against it.

“I’m glad this is resolved finally,” he said. “I’m cautious about it. But is this a victory for the Southern Section? The concept is. We’ve maintained for a long time that there was room for multiple marketing approaches.”

State Executive Director Marie Ishida said she believed that no scars exist from past fights.

“Deep down we needed to realize that our old plan wasn’t working,” she said. “I was worried about the potential damage all this arguing would [do] to permanent relationships and our abilities to work together on future issues. We’ve done a very good thing.”

Barbara Fiege of the Los Angeles City Section, which is considering a marketing plan of its own, said the plan had the potential to help offset diminished state funding.

“One of the benefits for those of us who have not been into that marketing arena before is that we now feel a little more educated about it,” she said. “We realize that funding for athletics could be cut at any time, so this helps us become proactive, so that if cutbacks occur, programs won’t take a step backward.”