2 ms·
That's ridiculous. Having football obligates the universities to spend a bunch of money elsewhere. That is part of the bill for having football! You wouldn't
by x0x0 10y ago
That's ridiculous. Having football obligates the universities to spend a bunch of money elsewhere. That is part of the bill for having football! You wouldn't claim that your company ex costs is profitable and expect people to take you seriously; they'd cry what about the costs! (Wait, maybe this isn't a good example...)
As gp points out, net athletics almost always lose money. Since having football, once all required costs are taking into account, is almost always a money-losing proposition, it's very fair to ask why our universities should be subsidizing the NFL's development league.
- dpark 10y agoThere are at least 24 examples demonstrating that it's possible for a university with a football program to profit from it. Further, football does not oblige a university to spend on all the athletics they choose to fund. It's easy to imagine that more universities would have profitable athletic programs if they cut more of the net-cost programs. e.g. Rowing and archery and scuba likely cost the university while generating little to no revenue. You could eliminate these for both men and women and thus reduce the overall cost of athletics without violating title IX. (I am not proposing that this would be good or bad, merely possible and cost-saving.) Looking briefly, though, there are some legitimate articles indicating that profitable football programs are not the majority of cases, so it does appear that the profitability of football in colleges is overstated.