4 ms·

From the linked opinion piece below [1]: A recent N.C.A.A. study determined that only about 20 of the 1,000 or so college sports programs in the nation were pr

by syops 5y ago

From the linked opinion piece below [1]: A recent N.C.A.A. study determined that only about 20 of the 1,000 or so college sports programs in the nation were profitable. The 30 largest universities in the country each routinely generate annual revenues exceeding $100 million from sports, but according to the National Collegiate Athletic Association, most of those revenues are spent covering operating expenses for the school’s athletic programs and paying tuition for their student-athletes. The majority of Division I colleges in the N.C.A.A. operate at a loss. There is lots of money in college athletics. That money is not going to institutions to generate revenue for the institution at large. That money goes back to the athletic department and almost every college athletic program receives revenue in the form of student fees. Here’s a quote from another piece [2]: By far, the largest student fee is the last – the intercollegiate athletic fee – which can be upwards of 80% of the total fee amount at many institutions not in Power Five conferences. Conventional wisdom says that intercollegiate athletics is a boon to colleges and universities; that it’s wildly profitable; attracts new students; enhances fundraising; and, boosts the university’s profile. Yet these are myths, often perpetuated by the media – and by the universities themselves. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/opinion/pay-college-athletes.html?fbclid=IwAR3OwRlgmtkVYvNRZJtX-l1XiZGrtIY6EeDlNRpqzujuAR-cDlKDYJNpclg https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/opinion/pay-college-athle... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2014/12/12/who-actually-funds-intercollegiate-athletic-programs/?sh=69775ec417af https://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2014/12/12/who-actually-fu... https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/why-students-foot-the-bill-for-college-sports-and-how-some-are-fighting-back/2015/11/30/7ca47476-8d3e-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html?itid=sf_ https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/why-students-foot-the-...

salmo 5y ago
So that's a little different argument, and more complex. Profit/loss is a weird thing in a non-profit. College Football (in the Power 5, and top tier group of 5) itself is very profitable. But the money is quickly spent on the program and to fund the program and the department as a whole. Also, some stats there include Div II, III, etc. Programs without big TV deals, licensing revenue etc. do not make money from their athletic departments. Not a shocker or really what any of this is referring to. But for the major programs, the money from licensing, TV rights, conference revenue sharing, etc. covers the basics for women's programs and less popular sports. Then it gets dumped along with booster $ into the CFB football facilities arms race, ever growing coaching salaries, and multimillion dollar buyouts of contracts. This isn't totally unique to not-for-profit Universities either. Executive perks in non-profits are another way to make the year-end balance out. Government programs, and corporate departments dump cash at the end of their fiscal years to avoid losing the budget the next year.
- syops 5y ago
  My claim was about most college sports programs and that the universities don’t profit from sports programs. Div II and Div III programs are relevant to my claim. When there is profit it gets dumped back into the athletic department. The university as a whole does not benefit in most cases. Given the mandatory fees that students pay to athletic departments, the stadiums built by taxpayer funds the argument that college sports generates lots of money for the university as a whole is wrong. Consider this. Take away the most profitable college sports program. Will that college be forced to increase tuition to cover the loss of money for non-athletic related expenses? The answer is no.

by syops 5y ago

salmo 5y ago

So that's a little different argument, and more complex. Profit/loss is a weird thing in a non-profit. College Football (in the Power 5, and top tier group of 5) itself is very profitable. But the money is quickly spent on the program and to fund the program and the department as a whole. Also, some stats there include Div II, III, etc. Programs without big TV deals, licensing revenue etc. do not make money from their athletic departments. Not a shocker or really what any of this is referring to. But for the major programs, the money from licensing, TV rights, conference revenue sharing, etc. covers the basics for women's programs and less popular sports. Then it gets dumped along with booster $ into the CFB football facilities arms race, ever growing coaching salaries, and multimillion dollar buyouts of contracts. This isn't totally unique to not-for-profit Universities either. Executive perks in non-profits are another way to make the year-end balance out. Government programs, and corporate departments dump cash at the end of their fiscal years to avoid losing the budget the next year.

syops 5y ago
My claim was about most college sports programs and that the universities don’t profit from sports programs. Div II and Div III programs are relevant to my claim. When there is profit it gets dumped back into the athletic department. The university as a whole does not benefit in most cases. Given the mandatory fees that students pay to athletic departments, the stadiums built by taxpayer funds the argument that college sports generates lots of money for the university as a whole is wrong. Consider this. Take away the most profitable college sports program. Will that college be forced to increase tuition to cover the loss of money for non-athletic related expenses? The answer is no.