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-athle...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2014/12/12/who-actually-fu...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/why-students-foot-the-...
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.
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.
Each state, university, have different requirements on what is reported as subsidies. For example, discounting an out of state athlete's tuition may or may not be a subsidy. In some schools, all of the apparel sold with a school logo is athletics money, while in others, a percentage. And of course, private universities like Stanford, Northwestern, and the Ivys report very little.
The articles also strawman the entire argument by using student fees to fund athletics. True, some schools abuse the hell out of them. Some Division III schools have ungodly amounts of athletic fees, and the students will never see their return. However, success in athletics, and football in particular, add to the brand of the school. Anti-athletics faculty love to huff and puff about how this isn't true, but common sense and studies in business schools routinely dispute this. Boston College reported a 3x increase in enrollment the year after Doug Flutie threw his touchdown. University of Alabama's enrollment has gone way up while the acceptance rate has gone way down in Nick Saban's tenure. Even if you never attend a game of any sort in school, you will gain in the perceived value of your degree.
> I haven't looked into it but I doubt any football program paid for the stadium they use
This tells me all I need to know about your bias on this.
Do you not have opinions, impressions, thought, ideas about things you haven’t studied? Of course you do. In my case I was intellectually honest enough to let the reader distinguish between those thoughts of mine I had ready evidence for and those that I don’t.
As to your third paragraph please keep in mind my usage of with rare exceptions. Of course you can cite counter examples to the general trend of college football being a drain on resources. Also note that I’ve cited evidence to back up my beliefs and you have not. You’ve even made a reference to common sense. There are far too many examples of where intuition and common sense are wrong for this to be a legitimate basis for a strong belief.
What is that article missing if your assertion is true?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/why-students-foot-the-...
There are a lot of people who make a lot of money off of college sports. None of them are players.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/why-students-foot-the-...
In terms of sheer numbers of schools, I guess your definition of "few exceptions" hold true. Should the majority of commuter schools, like say California State University, Sacramento, subsidize heavily in athletics? Of course not. However, your UCLA's, Michigans, and Texas A&Ms make insane amount of money, and often give money back to their university.
Since you refuse to even do a small amount of research into this, stadiums and capital expenditures are vastly funded by alumni donations. Unofficially that is the biggest metric for athletic director success.
https://www.ibtimes.com/college-football-public-universities...