Report on Alcohol Sales at Notre Dame Stadium and Sustainable Development Goal Implications

Introduction: A New Policy Framework

During the current season, the University of Notre Dame initiated a new policy permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages to general admission ticket holders at its football stadium. This report analyzes the implementation and initial outcomes of this policy through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly focusing on health, economic growth, and institutional responsibility.

Institutional Governance and Economic Impact (SDG 8 & SDG 16)

H3: A Deliberated Institutional Process

The university’s decision-making process reflects principles of strong and accountable institutions (SDG 16). According to Mike Seamon, Vice President for University Operations, the policy was adopted following a comprehensive review designed to balance fan expectations with the venue’s unique traditions. Key steps in this process included:

• Engaging with peer collegiate and professional venues to understand best practices.
• Utilizing data from previous stadium events, such as concerts and professional soccer games, where alcohol sales were successfully implemented.
• Considering the stadium’s historical and cultural significance in the policy design.

H3: Economic Growth and Strategic Partnerships

The introduction of alcohol sales aligns with SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by creating a new revenue stream and reinforcing strategic partnerships.

1. Revenue Generation: While specific financial data was not disclosed, the university reported a “warm response” to the new amenity, indicating positive economic activity.
2. Corporate Partnership: The university continues its nine-year partnership with Levy Restaurants, a national concessionaire. This partnership supports local employment and leverages Levy’s established protocols for responsible service, contributing to a framework of decent work.
3. Market Alignment: The policy aligns Notre Dame with a growing number of major collegiate venues, including the University of Michigan, that have embraced alcohol sales to enhance the fan experience and generate revenue.

Health, Well-being, and Community Safety (SDG 3 & SDG 11)

H3: Official Health and Safety Protocols

The university asserts its commitment to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) through established safety measures. Official reports indicate:

• Consistent Safety Metrics: The number of safety and security incidents during the initial games of the season has remained consistent with previous seasons when alcohol was not sold to the general public.
• Responsible Service Mandate: Concession partner Levy is mandated to verify the legal identification of every individual for every transaction to prevent underage sales.
• Enforcement and Conduct: Students found engaging in or facilitating underage drinking are subject to referral through the University Conduct Process, reinforcing institutional accountability.

H3: Implementation Gaps and Challenges to SDG 3

Despite official protocols, anecdotal reports from students suggest significant challenges to the goal of ensuring health and well-being, particularly concerning underage drinking.

1. Lax Enforcement: An anonymous student reported purchasing alcohol with ease, stating, “The vendor looked high-school age, and I wasn’t even asked to show ID.”
2. Proxy Purchases: Another student described a system where of-age friends purchase beverages on their behalf, circumventing direct ID checks at the point of sale.
3. Perceived Impunity: Students expressed confidence in their ability to bring alcohol into student sections without being stopped, suggesting a gap between policy and enforcement within high-density student areas.

Responsible Consumption Patterns and Student Perspectives (SDG 12)

H3: Factors Influencing Consumption Choices

Student behavior indicates that the university’s policy has not fully reshaped consumption patterns, highlighting challenges related to SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). Many students choose not to purchase alcohol inside the stadium for several reasons:

• Economic Disincentives: The high cost of in-stadium beverages was cited as a primary deterrent. One student noted, “It’s too expensive. It’s not economical to get a lot of alcohol in the stadium.”
• Availability of Alternatives: The prevalence of pre-game tailgating provides access to free and readily available alcohol, reducing in-stadium demand for some attendees.
• Logistical Hurdles: Long concession lines were identified as another factor discouraging purchases.

These factors indicate that while the policy provides a controlled environment for consumption, it exists within a larger ecosystem of gameday behaviors that influence student choices and challenge the comprehensive achievement of responsible consumption goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  This goal is central to the article, which discusses the sale and consumption of alcohol, a substance with significant health implications. The article addresses the “harmful use of alcohol” through its focus on “unruly and intoxicated fans,” “public intoxication,” “liquor violations,” and the specific risks associated with “underage drinking.” The university’s stated commitment to the “safety of all attendees” directly aligns with ensuring the health and well-being of the community.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article highlights the role of institutions in maintaining order and enforcing laws. The University and its partners (Notre Dame Police Department, Levy Restaurants) are the institutions responsible for implementing and enforcing rules regarding alcohol sales and consumption. The discussion of the “University Conduct Process” for underage drinking, the enforcement of the legal drinking age, and the monitoring of “safety and security incidents” all relate to promoting the rule of law and ensuring public safety within the institution’s jurisdiction.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The decision to sell alcohol is presented as an economic one, a “new game day amenity” introduced to satisfy “fan expectations.” This represents a business strategy to diversify revenue streams for the university and its partner, Levy Restaurants. The article mentions the “financials from concessions” and the “warm response” from a consumer perspective, linking the initiative to economic activity and growth within the university’s operations.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  This goal is relevant through the lens of corporate responsibility. The university and its concessionaire, Levy Restaurants, are producers and sellers in this context. The article explicitly states that “Levy employs best practices across their venues in regards to the responsible serving of alcohol.” This commitment to responsible service, including mandatory ID checks, is a direct application of the principles of responsible production and consumption patterns.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.5: Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol.

   The entire article revolves around managing the “harmful use of alcohol.” The university’s policies, such as verifying IDs and referring students for underage drinking, are measures aimed at preventing substance abuse. The monitoring of “public intoxication” and “liquor violations” is a direct engagement with the consequences of harmful alcohol use.

2. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   This target is addressed through the university’s attempt to enforce the state of Indiana’s legal drinking age of 21. The article explores the gap between the stated rule (“verifies the ID of every individual”) and its actual implementation, as reported by students. The “University Conduct Process” represents the institution’s system of justice for rule violations.

3. Target 8.2: Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation…

   The introduction of alcohol sales at the stadium is a form of economic diversification for the venue’s concession services. It is a new product offering (“new game day amenity”) designed to increase revenue and enhance the fan experience, thereby contributing to the economic productivity of the university’s event operations.

4. Target 12.6: Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle.

   The article points to this target by highlighting the role of Levy Restaurants, the concessions partner. The statement that “Levy employs best practices… in regards to the responsible serving of alcohol” shows a company adopting a specific responsible practice as part of its operational model.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicators for Target 3.5 (Harmful use of alcohol):

  The article provides direct quantitative and qualitative indicators.

  • Quantitative: The number of alcohol-related incidents recorded in the NDPD blotter. The article specifies “13 liquor violations, seven instances of public intoxication and two incidents involving possession of false identification” for one game and compares it to “30 such incidents” from a previous event. This data can be used to track the impact of the new policy.
  • Qualitative: The prevalence of underage drinking. While not quantified, the article implies this is a significant issue through anonymous student testimonies, such as “I’ve seen so many people with drinks … in the student section that haven’t been caught.”

• Indicators for Target 16.3 (Promote the rule of law):

  The article implies several indicators for measuring the enforcement of rules.

  • Policy Adherence Rate: The effectiveness of the ID verification policy. The article presents conflicting evidence: the official policy is 100% verification, but a student reports, “I wasn’t even asked to show ID,” suggesting the adherence rate is less than perfect.
  • Number of Sanctions: The number of students “referred to the University Conduct Process for underage consumption” would be a direct indicator of enforcement actions taken by the institution.

• Indicators for Target 8.2 (Economic productivity):

  The primary indicator is financial, though the article states access to it was denied.

  • Revenue Data: The “financials from concessions” related to alcohol sales would be the most direct indicator of the economic success of this new venture.
  • Consumer Demand: The article provides a qualitative indicator by noting there has been a “warm response to this new game day amenity,” which suggests positive economic performance.

• Indicators for Target 12.6 (Companies adopting sustainable practices):

  The indicator is the existence and implementation of a corporate policy for responsible service.

  • Implementation of Best Practices: The article identifies the specific practice: “Levy verifies the ID of every individual before every transaction.” The successful and consistent implementation of this policy serves as the indicator of the company’s commitment to responsible practices.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: ndsmcobserver.com