SDSU committee considering student athletic fee hike holds closed-door meeting

Despite California State University system policies insisting on a transparent process, the San Diego State committee charged with making a recommendation on whether mandatory student athletic fees should be increased held a decisive meeting via Zoom on Friday that was not open to the public, media or the students who will ultimately pay them.

Meeting minutes and the committee’s recommendation to SDSU President Adela de la Torre, a university spokesperson said, won’t be made public until next week.

The university initially proposed a 45% hike in student athletic fees that already are among the highest in the nation, increasing $260 to $840 per year with 95% of the new money going to an athletic department running an eight-figure annual deficit.

Instead of a student vote, it used what is called “alternative consultation,” a process that involves campus forums to solicit student feedback, followed by a recommendation to de la Torre by the Campus Fee Advisory Committee (CFAC). The only time SDSU students voted on athletic fees was in 2004; they rejected the referendum, but then-president Stephen Weber imposed them anyway.

CSU policies don’t require a student referendum to raise fees but state that “alternative consultation strategies shall be developed … to ensure that the process is transparent and meaningful.”

The Working Families Student Fee Transparency and Accountability Act that is part of California’s Education Code referenced in the CSU fee policies states:

“In order for the general public to maintain confidence in the state’s public colleges and universities, the state’s public colleges and universities shall ensure transparency in … the rationale for implementing mandatory systemwide fee increases.”

The CFAC was scheduled to issue its recommendation the previous Friday at an open meeting held at a campus community center, then tabled it after limited discussion amid student pushback in the public comment session and an amended proposal by student government representatives on the committee.

The adjustments, which meeting minutes indicated would be voted on Friday, reduce the athletic department’s take from 95% to just under 90%. It also phases in the fee increase over four years, at $60 per semester for the next two years, $90 per semester in the third and topping out at $120 per semester in the fourth. That’s $10 less than the original request of a $130 bump per semester, or $260 per year.

Over the next four years, that means about $15 million less for the athletic department than it would have received under the initial proposal. But it also means, once the full fee hike is in place, more than $8 million in additional student contributions per year on top of what it already receives.

In the most recently available athletic budget posted on the university website, for 2024-25, student fees at $16.3 million were the department’s single biggest source of revenue, more than institutional support (state tax dollars), donations, conference distributions or ticket sales. That budget projected a $5.3 million deficit for the department and an additional $28.8 million for Snapdragon Stadium.

The College Athletics Database, which compiles federally mandated financial statements from athletic departments at public institutions, shows a $29.1 million deficit for the 2024 fiscal year.

It also lists SDSU as having the seventh-most athletic-related debt at $282.8 million from building Snapdragon Stadium, but the six schools with more all belong to power conferences where members receive upwards of $75 million annually in TV and bowl distributions compared to $6 million for SDSU from the Mountain West.

In annual debt service or facility rental fees, SDSU ranked third nationally at $30.1 million, the only non-power conference school in the top 17.

SDSU ranked 21st in total student fee contribution among 240 public institutions, 51 of which fund their athletic departments without student fees. The proposed fee hikes would put it in the top 10 at north of $25 million per year.

De la Torre is not bound to accept the CFAC’s recommendation but is widely expected to, since it was her office that generated the proposal.