Search News


Browse Archives

News

Sports Subsidies Soar

January 19, 2010

Share This Story

Related Stories

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Money is harder to come by in virtually all realms of higher education these days, and competition for funds is likely to grow. So at a time when many colleges and universities are freezing salaries and positions and even furloughing employees, it is likely to disturb employees on some campuses that institutional subsidies for sports programs are large and growing.

That analysis is possible thanks to data on sports revenues and expenditures collected and published last week by USA Today. The newspaper asked universities that play football in the Football Bowl Subdivision, the National Collegiate Athletic Association's top competitive level (formerly Division I-A), for four years' worth of the financial disclosure forms they provided to the association as part of its regular survey of sports finances. The NCAA's own report on the data provides information only in the aggregate, but by publishing the data for virtually all public universities that play big-time football -- most private institutions and a handful of publics declined to make their forms public (see below) -- USA Today has made it possible to look at the situations at individual sports programs.

While the picture looks different depending on the institution, a few broad patterns are evident and worth highlighting:

  • The vast majority of sports programs -- even those that purport to support themselves -- receive significant financial backing from their institutions to operate. Of the 99 institutions in the table below, all but four -- Louisiana State, Ohio State, and Purdue Universities, and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln -- reported receiving at least some revenues in the 2007-8 fiscal year from one of four categories of "allocated" revenues: student fees, direct state or government support, direct institutional support (general fund money), or indirect institutional support (facilities, energy costs, etc.).
  • While 65, or two-thirds, of the sports programs reported having more operating revenues than operating expenses in 2007-8 -- meaning that they appeared to turn a profit -- just a quarter showed net profit after excluding the subsidy totals.
  • 44 of the 99 sports programs derived at least a third of their operating revenues from student fees, institutional support or other allocated sources -- and 27 derived at least half of their revenues that way. Among the highest: Eastern Michigan, Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Kent State, Miami (Ohio), Middle Tennessee, Ohio, Western Kentucky and Western Michigan Universities, the State University of New York at Buffalo, and the University of Akron drew at least two-thirds of their operating revenues from allocated rather than generated sources (ticket sales, fund raising dollars, television and other deals, etc.).

A few caveats warrant mention.

First, there is legitimate debate in college sports about whether it is reasonable or appropriate to demand that sports programs be self-supporting. Defenders of such subsidies often note that Ivy League and Division III colleges, whose sports programs are generally seen as being part of their institutions' broader educational missions, make no apologies about providing most of the financial backing for those programs, as they would for arts or music or other programs. The more that big-time sports programs are required or pushed to be financially self-supporting, some supporters of the programs argue, the more pressure they may feel to commercialize themselves.

Second, some of the "allocated" revenues that count in this analysis as "subsidies" can be seen as revenue that the sports programs would otherwise be generating on their own. The prime example of this is student fees, which many sports programs receive in exchange for providing free or discounted tickets to students -- tickets that, in some cases at least, they would otherwise be able to sell and produce revenue.

Still, the spiraling costs of college sports programs, and the sometimes surprisingly large and growing share of those costs that are covered with institutional or state dollars, have become a matter of concern on several campuses, and are almost certain to draw attention on others as higher education's fiscal crisis expands. The faculty at the University of California at Berkeley voted in November to require the sports program there to wean itself off millions of dollars in annual subsidies that had led to a $31 million cumulative deficit that university leaders forgave in 2007. The extent of the deficits became known only because of faculty digging into past sports budgets.

The issue of sports spending has already appeared on the radar screen at the University of Cincinnati, too, where a universitywide panel concluded that the university's current sports budget (which runs an annual deficit of $3.5 million) was insufficient for it to compete successfully in the Big East Conference, which it joined recently. To fully compete, the panel said, could require as much as $11 million more spending a year.

While the panel said it was essential for the athletics department to stop running an annual deficit, several of its ideas for doing so -- including raising student fees and having the university absorb some or all of the department's $24 million cumulative structural deficit -- would require a bigger commitment of institutional funds, at a time when Ohio's public universities, like many around the country, are facing more budget turmoil, not less.

"This has generated a lot of discussion about athletics vs. academics," acknowledged Sandra Degen, Cincinnati's vice president for research and a co-chair of the panel.

Like most public universities in California, San Diego State University has seen its state support cut sharply in recent years, and, promises from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger notwithstanding, more reductions are possible. Yet San Diego State has seen its subsidies for athletics rise from $11 million to $16 million in three years. A spokesman said in an e-mail message that allocations from the university's general fund had remained flat, and attributed the increase to a student fee increase designed to add women's lacrosse and keep the institution in compliance with statewide gender equity guidelines. "SDSU’s athletic budget allocations from the university’s general fund have actually remained flat," said the spokesman, Greg Hand.

The reports that the university submitted to the NCAA, replicated in USA Today's database, indeed show San Diego State's student fee allocations to athletics rising from $5.3 million in 2004-5 to $6.3 million in 2007-8. But the reports also show "direct institutional support" to athletics nearly doubling, from $5.3 million in 2004-5 to $10.1 million in 2007-8.

"We are well aware of the fact the increasing general fund allocations to athletics cannot be an option given California finances," Edith J. Benkov, director of French and Francophone studies and chair of the San Diego State University Senate, wrote in an e-mail message.

In addition to virtually all of the private institutions that compete in the Football Bowl Subdivision -- including universities like Duke, Notre Dame, Stanford and others -- several public institutions declined to provide their NCAA financial forms to USA Today. They include the three state-related institutions in Pennsylvania -- Pennsylvania State and Temple Universities and the University of Pittsburgh -- and the U.S. Naval Academy.

More up-to-date financial data on the institutional subsidies to sports programs could be available soon, as NCAA members were required to submit their 2008-9 financial reports to the NCAA last week.

Big-Time Sports Programs and Institutional Subsidies

  Total Subsidy, 2005 Total Subsidy, 2008 Total
Operating
Revenue,
2008 		Subsidy as % of
Operating
Budget 		Total Operating
Expenses,
2008 		Profit/loss, pre-subsidy Profit/loss, counting subsidy
Arizona State U. $10,195,482 $11,678,755 $54,833,180 21.30% $54,296,002 $537,178 -$11,141,577
Arkansas State U. 3,084,406 3,329,116 8,392,852 39.67% 10,388,098 -1,995,246 -5,324,362
Auburn U. 982,349 5,195,136 89,311,824 5.82% 69,841,200 19,470,624 14,275,488
Ball State 10,513,606 10,042,675 22,125,129 45.39% 19,441,780 2,683,349 -7,359,326
Boise State U. 6,466,612 9,149,761 25,578,051 35.77% 25,607,867 -29,816 -9,179,577
Bowling Green State U. 11,055,482 10,971,257 19,387,291 56.59% 17,789,360 1,597,931 -9,373,326
California State U. at Fresno 5,354,106 6,432,445 27,530,567 23.36% 28,856,248 -1,325,681 -7,758,126
Central Michigan U. 11,841,935 13,824,715 21,103,460 65.51% 21,636,204 -532,744 -14,357,459
Clemson U. 1,639,758 3,936,484 59,180,652 6.65% 60,050,712 -870,060 -4,806,544
Colorado State U. 6,329,144 9,894,238 23,759,185 41.64% 23,953,191 -194,006 -10,088,244
East Carolina U. 9,839,851 12,056,711 29,268,128 41.19% 27,625,195 1,642,933 -10,413,778
Eastern Michigan U. 17,135,653 21,396,376 24,971,850 85.68% 25,153,393 -181,543 -21,577,919
Florida Atlantic U. 11,453,831 11,081,707 16,574,905 66.86% 16,275,735 299,170 -10,782,537
Florida International U. 12,131,586 15,691,580 20,230,654 77.56% 18,475,489 1,755,165 -13,936,415
Florida State U. 4,796,773 6,590,629 73,458,494 8.97% 65,583,105 7,875,389 1,284,760
Georgia Institute of Technology 2,534,562 4,855,809 54,511,968 8.91% 54,800,099 -288,131 -5,143,940
Indiana U. 1,700,460 1,426,911 57,155,333 2.50% 50,920,826 6,234,507 4,807,596
Iowa State U. 3,765,158 4,051,768 38,621,346 10.49% 38,642,012 -20,666 -4,072,434
Kansas State U. 2,949,040 3,189,559 49,113,706 6.49% 41,362,747 7,750,959 4,561,400
Kent State U. 12,373,580 13,384,016 18,106,791 73.92% 18,891,134 -784,343 -14,168,359
Louisiana State U. 0 0 85,018,205 0.00% 81,150,829 3,867,376 3,867,376
Louisiana Tech U. 4,816,297 8,114,039 14,656,982 55.36% 14,631,914 25,068 -8,088,971
Marshall U. 6,974,362 9,204,910 23,103,224 39.84% 23,575,610 -472,386 -9,677,296
Miami U. (Ohio) 14,462,096 16,665,051 23,307,295 71.50% 23,320,946 -13,651 -16,678,702
Michigan State U. 3,154,288 3,536,893 81,390,686 4.35% 83,444,368 -2,053,682 -5,590,575
Middle Tennessee State U. 11,386,377 14,737,696 19,656,265 74.98% 19,656,265 0 -14,737,696
Mississippi State U. 3,588,585 4,710,861 30,440,090 15.48% 30,432,972 7,118 -4,703,743
New Mexico State U. 8,074,837 16,103,229 25,379,586 63.45% 28,298,002 -2,918,416 -19,021,645
North Carolina State U. 2,398,416 3,380,687 45,632,223 7.41% 43,892,285 1,739,938 -1,640,749
Northern Illinois U. 10,634,413 15,435,450 23,342,006 66.13% 22,448,970 893,036 -14,542,414
Ohio U. 10,713,478 14,591,522 19,450,560 75.02% 20,297,059 -846,499 -15,438,021
Ohio State U. 5,429 0 115,737,022 0.00% 114,264,848 1,472,174 1,472,174
Oklahoma State U. 4,174,287 4,644,017 98,874,092 4.70% 89,801,118 9,072,974 4,428,957
Oregon State U. 6,567,352 10,199,008 52,875,339 19.29% 52,128,314 747,025 -9,451,983
Purdue U. 677,093 0 64,253,784 0.00% 59,217,169 5,036,615 5,036,615
Rutgers U. 19,881,954 22,237,281 52,012,491 42.75% 51,748,813 263,678 -21,973,603
San Diego State U. 11,161,382 16,874,292 32,118,251 52.54% 31,405,858 712,393 -16,161,899
San Jose State U. 9,179,715 11,931,024 18,816,240 63.41% 17,386,449 1,429,791 -10,501,233
State U. of New York at Buffalo 14,397,205 17,001,122 21,859,641.00 77.77% 21,854,374 5,267 -16,995,855
Texas A&M U. 839,348 3,264,000 92,476,146 3.53% 77,426,317 15,049,829 11,785,829
Texas Tech U. 5,185,154 5,881,749 52,599,785 11.18% 51,275,866 1,323,919 -4,557,830
Troy U. 6,593,246 9,139,826 14,327,947 63.79% 14,327,947 0 -9,139,826
U.S. Air Force Academy 8,417,045 16,579,598 30,604,249 54.17% 31,174,646 -570,397 -17,149,995
U.S. Military Academy 7,664,306 10,484,048 29,398,220 35.66% 24,888,651 4,509,569 -5,974,479
U. of Akron 10,272,310 13,813,933 18,711,948 73.82% 18,858,092 -146,144 -13,960,077
U. of Alabama 2,550,605 9,457,262 123,769,841 7.64% 123,370,004 399,837 -9,057,425
U. of Alabama at Birmingham 9,106,614 12,399,602 22,430,831 55.28% 21,509,018 921,813 -11,477,789
U. of Arizona 4,206,016 5,469,311 49,241,506 11.11% 46,211,393 3,030,113 -2,439,198
U. of Arkansas at Fayetteville 1,429,833 1,518,452 66,174,916 2.29% 64,632,499 1,542,417 23,965
U. of California at Berkeley 5,184,678 7,451,464 64,333,065 11.58% 64,282,315 50,750 -7,400,714
U. of California at Los Angeles 2,535,330 2,856,743 66,088,264 4.32% 66,088,264 0 -2,856,743
U. of Central Florida 13,756,337 18,676,064 39,715,730 47.02% 38,825,507 890,223 -17,785,841
U. of Cincinnati 5,642,852 10,699,504 32,281,546 33.14% 36,369,715 -4,088,169 -14,787,673
U. of Colorado at Boulder 3,162,568 7,836,559 52,631,896 14.89% 48,368,255 4,263,641 -3,572,918
U. of Connecticut 9,526,832 11,185,218 55,218,003 20.26% 55,025,374 192,629 -10,992,589
U. of Florida 3,753,327 4,431,187 106,607,895 4.16% 98,775,583 7,832,312 3,401,125
U. of Georgia 3,028,878 3,073,606 85,554,395 3.59% 71,993,533 13,560,862 10,487,256
U. of Hawaii 1,862,355 9,822,971 37,427,263 26.25% 35,133,798 2,293,465 -7,529,506
U. of Houston 12,437,318 17,547,745 30,988,450 56.63% 30,988,450 0 -17,547,745
U. of Idaho 6,638,118 7,673,036 15,208,208 50.45% 15,610,442 -402,234 -8,075,270
U. of Illinois 4,708,707 4,202,696 67,818,403 6.20% 63,458,807 4,359,596 156,900
U. of Iowa 3,632,198 2,287,795 81,515,865 2.81% 71,602,594 9,913,271 7,625,476
U. of Kansas 3,186,282 3,893,956 82,976,047 4.69% 65,748,366 17,227,681 13,333,725
U. of Kentucky 639,686 568,996 71,727,243 0.79% 71,079,982 647,261 78,265
U. of Louisiana Lafayette 3,232,589 6,066,824 11,499,015 52.76% 11,026,554 472,461 -5,594,363
U. of Louisiana Monroe 2,915,857 4,181,610 9,030,596 46.30% 9,242,021 -211,425 -4,393,035
U. of Louisville 4,685,393 8,408,683 56,540,896 14.87% 55,145,760 1,395,136 -7,013,547
U. of Maryland at College Park 7,500,191 11,299,546 59,624,100 18.95% 56,844,987 2,779,113 -8,520,433
U. of Memphis 4,657,928 10,161,144 34,379,023 29.56% 34,379,023 0 -10,161,144
U. of Michigan 0 58,817 99,027,105 0.06% 85,496,004 13,531,101 13,472,284
U. of Minnesota 9,039,997 9,410,450 68,951,691 13.65% 63,968,805 4,982,886 -4,427,564
U. of Mississippi 2,470,885 3,224,929 34,769,709 9.28% 34,769,709 0 -3,224,929
U. of Missouri at Columbia
2,804,250
2,657,770
55,566,932
-5.22%
51,779,677
3,787,255
1,129,485
U. of Nebraska at Lincoln 0 0 75,492,884 0.00% 74,981,110 511,774 511,774
U. of Nevada at Reno 8,122,873 9,479,118 24,383,923.00 38.87% 24,051,345 332,578 -9,146,540
U. of Nevada at Las Vegas 9,596,488 19,044,324 38,377,947 49.62% 37,934,266 443,681 -18,600,643
U. of New Mexico 8,107,987 12,010,006 35,979,959 33.38% 36,477,159 -497,200 -12,507,206
U. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 5,515,513 8,051,919 66,148,186 12.17% 65,929,532 218,654 -7,833,265
U. of North Texas 4,315,679 4,691,283 10,243,090 45.80% 16,449,462 -6,206,372 -10,897,655
U. of Oklahoma 150,000 150,000 77,098,008 0.19% 76,945,882 152,126 2,126
U. of Oregon 1,369,845 1,168,411 56,623,901 2.06% 56,259,942 363,959 -804,452
U. of South Carolina 854,387 1,987,931 66,545,953 2.99% 64,516,437 2,029,516 41,585
U. of South Florida 10,276,888 12,821,262 34,935,813 36.70% 32,809,603 2,126,210 -10,695,052
U. of Southern Mississippi 7,466,994 6,913,343 18,712,687 36.94% 18,671,620 41,067 -6,872,276
U. of Tennessee 7,546,536 13,382,629 101,806,196 13.15% 100,507,146 1,299,050 -12,083,579
U. of Texas at Austin 3,027,310 1,832,229 120,288,370 1.52% 110,996,365 9,292,005 7,459,776
U. of Texas at El Paso 10,759,894 11,375,111 25,269,243.00 45.02% 25,707,421 -438,178 -11,813,289
U. of Toledo 10,542,525 10,550,952 19,082,009 55.29% 17,811,494 1,270,515 -9,280,437
U. of Utah 6,002,786 7,112,517 27,447,140 25.91% 27,928,663 -481,523 -7,594,040
U. of Virginia 7,973,032 11,119,358 64,396,612 17.27% 65,838,543 -1,441,931 -12,561,289
U. of
Washington 		1,460,173 1,849,894 60,729,016 3.05% 57,330,671 3,398,345 1,548,451    
U. of Wisconsin
at Madison 		5,454,018 5,262,870 95,118,124 5.53% 93,008,125 2,109,999 -3,152,871    
U. of Wyoming 10,638,025 13,233,339 24,547,609 53.91% 24,876,915 -329,306 -13,562,645
Utah State U. 6,137,955 7,813,467 13,496,893 57.89% 14,595,321 -1,098,428 -8,911,895
Virginia Tech U. 6,165,427 6,529,417 64,412,343 10.14% 59,157,745 5,254,598 -1,274,819
Washington State U. 7,563,143 9,090,504 39,621,060 22.94% 36,495,847 3,125,213 -5,965,291
West Virginia U. 2,780,626 3,652,315 54,262,716 6.73% 49,052,709 5,210,007 1,557,692
Western Kentucky U. 10,047,994 13,704,025 19,957,909 68.66% 19,957,909 0 -13,704,025
Western Michigan U. 14,201,835 15,478,356 21,990,723 70.39% 21,635,009 355,714 -15,122,642
Totals $627,735,906 $831,536,404 $4,657,324,391   $4,458,150,759 $199,173,632 -$632,362,772

Source: USA Today survey of NCAA reports

— Doug Lederman
Go to comments (28) »

Get Hired!

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

See all jobs like these

Search for jobs

Vice-President, Corporate Services

Lethbridge College
Reporting to the President and collaborating with a talented team of vice presidents, deans, and directors, the Vice- President, Corporate Services ...
More

COMPTROLLER

Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College
This administrative position reports to the Vice President for Fiscal Affairs and will be responsible for planning, organizing, receipting and ...
More

Assistant Coach: Strength and Conditioning

University of Denver
Job Summary: This position is responsible for the development and administration of a sound strength and conditioning program for assigned sports, ...
More

Accounting Code Specialist

Weill Medical College of Cornell University
Founded in 1898, and affiliated with what is now New York-Presbyterian Hospital since 1927, Weill Cornell Medical College is among the top-ranked ...
More

Quality Assurance Manager 9256BR

Yale University
Under the broad direction of the Associate Administrator and the Clinical Administrator of the Department of Psychiatry, and with considerable ...
More

Director of Finance

Kaplan Higher Education
Req #: 11661BRKaplan Division: Kaplan Higher Ed CampusesJob Level: DirectorJob Description: Kaplan Higher Education TESST College of Technology - ...
More

Most Popular

More...
Don't Miss a Great Opportunity

Comments on Sports Subsidies Soar

  • State Funds
  • Posted by Mike , administrator on January 19, 2010 at 5:45am EST

  • State funds should be allocated for academic and instructional cost only!

    The problem with the fee structure at most public universities is that the fees are mandatory and related to enrollment. i.e technology fees, academic excellence fees, recreation, student government, student health, intercollegiate athletics, etc.

    A slightly different model would provide a menu of services that the student could pick and choose based on their preference.

    If a particular service was not funded adequately to provide the service the university could decide to subsidize, close the service or privatize.

    Education would probably be better if we focused on education and not all the sideshows.

  • student fees
  • Posted by Prof on January 19, 2010 at 6:00am EST

  • It would be interesting to learn the percentage of students at individual schools who have no interest in ever attending an athletic event, but are nonetheless required to pay a not insignificant athletic fee. This is common at many "mid-major" schools where there are thousands of empty seats at football and basketball games. And I imagine that at Division I-A universities more students than some might guess have little or no interest in the sports program. Of course, some would remind us that the same argument might be made about more general student activity fees.

  • Consistancy, Scott
  • Posted by J.J. , Too real to claim Diogenes' mantle / Worker-Bee Central at Podunk Univ. on January 19, 2010 at 6:15am EST

  • Anyone who has been around a campus budget knows, if every activity that ran a deficit was eliminated -- most programs would be eliminated. Look how Moody's considers higher-ed's operating ability --

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/01/19/qt#217883

    And to those who believe their deficit-ridden program is entitled to subsidy -- recall the USSR. Basically driven into financial bankruptcy because everyone thought themselves entitled to subsidy (ideological bankruptcy). In time, no one did zip.

    NCAA men's football and men's basketball like farm teams? Get rid of them -- lose 15% of students and 30% of alum donations. That's a deficit.

  • Budget
  • Posted by Mike , administrator on January 19, 2010 at 6:45am EST

  • Scott,

    Indeed, universities subsidze many academic and nonacademic services and programs.

    The institutions budget exercise should make this all clear and public so that the entire campus community is fully informed that the study abroad program is subsidized by $xxx and the career services department is subsidized by $xxx and intercollegiate athletics is subsidized by $xxx.

    We need to understand the revenue sources, expenses and the allocation process.

    Especially the allocation process because this will inform the campus community as to the institutions values and Trustee stewardship.

  • Gee! Look at what I own!
  • Posted by Harry Pence , SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor Emeritus at SUNY Oneonta on January 19, 2010 at 8:15am EST

  • When AIG went bankrupt and the US taxpayers bailed it out, I discovered that I owned part of Manchester United, a major soccer team. Now I discover that on the state level I am supporting college sports even though I don't go to the games. Fortunately, I don't live close enough to one of the major teams that have just built a multi-million dollar arena, or my taxes would probably have paid for that, too. I am a sports conglomerate and didn't know it.

  • And The Band Played On
  • Posted by Justa Prof on January 19, 2010 at 9:00am EST

  • Somebody please explain why sports has such a stranglehold on higher education.

    Is it because it attracts students? Hopefully, students select a university based on academic offerings, not its sports prowess.

    Does it attract alumni donations? Undoubtedly, but nearly all of these donations go back into sports with little, if any, going into academics (except, possibly, into sports academics........... LOL).

    The primary mission of a university, supposedly, is to provide higher education. Sports are entertainment and provide nothing useful to the student that could not be provided with far less cost (from cable TV, for example).

    Somebody makes a LOT of money from the sports program but very little of it actually is put back into academics. And, why are the finances of sports so obfuscated? Play on, Nero.

  • Which side of the face mask is J.J. speaking from?
  • Posted by Not a Jock Sniffer on January 19, 2010 at 9:15am EST

  • "...recall the USSR. Basically driven into financial bankruptcy because everyone thought themselves entitled to subsidy (ideological bankruptcy)"

    This is seems to say subsidized, money-losing athletic programs such as Arizona State's will drive the university into bankruptcy and should be eliminated.

    "NCAA men's football and men's basketball like farm teams? Get rid of them -- lose 15% of students and 30% of alum donations. That's a deficit."

    This seems to say that getting rid of subsidized, money-losing bigtime athletic programs will drive the university into bankruptcy, so they should be kept.

    Or is the point that schools like Arizona State should get rid of the "non-revenue"sports such as cross-country, tennis, rugby, fencing, etc. that are played by real "student-athletes" (and not de facto minor-league pros), and keep only the de facto minor-league professional sports that turn a profit (if they do) at the turnstiles and on television?

  • Posted by Sam Nadler , Visiting Professor of Math. on January 19, 2010 at 9:15am EST

  • I wish the universities would recruit faculty and students with the same standards and care that they do football players.

  • Subsidies for FBS College Sports Programs
  • Posted by John Thelin , Professor at University of Kentucky on January 19, 2010 at 10:15am EST

  • The threat by athletic department officials that if mandatory student fees were eliminated, then the athletic association could recoup lost revenues by selling tickets previously reserved for students is interesting -- and a dangerous venture I welcome Athletic Directors to play. In a spirit of fairness I would warn the threatening ADs that they ought to read the charter for their programs that receive 501C3 tax exemptions. Many of them invoke that the athletic association provides student activities. If students have to pay open market prices for student athletic events, this m ay jeopardize the tax exemption. A more logical argument would be that a student who wishes to participate in a special activity has to pay to do so (e.g., marching band, theatre, club activities). This could include college sports -- and charge students for the right to participate as players. That, of course, will not happen and should not happen -- but it is no more ridiculous than eliminating free student seats for what are, ahem, "student activities" of intercollegiate sporting contets. Or are they "student activities?" Oops!

  • Fleecing the University
  • Posted by Red Lion on January 19, 2010 at 11:15am EST

  • Big time college sports should remember that they cannot thrive or exist without a healthy higher education. There is a certain arrogance among college presidents, Board of Trustees, and sport administrators that somehow universities cannot survive without the spectacle of division 1 football and basketball, that much needed University development contributions are dependent upon a winning the success of these programs, and that it is acceptable to drain universities and students of much needed funds with skyrocketing salaries and waste even at times of fiscal crises.
    This unessential entertainment industry is fleecing an essential non-profit, and when academic scandal is factored into the equation, its relevance to the academy is evaporating. I envision the evolution of superconferences in college athletics with much fewer universities affording the costs of big time sports.

  • Inconvenient facts, Harvard
  • Posted by J.J. on January 19, 2010 at 12:30pm EST

  • " .. Or is the point that schools like Arizona State should get rid of the "non-revenue"sports such as cross-country, tennis, rugby, fencing .."

    Anyone who has been around a college budget KNOWS football and basketball subsidize (1) NCAA women's sports due to Title IX and (2) minor men's sports.

    So, yeah -- eliminate football and you eliminate NCAA women's sports.

    Is that what you want? Well, you'd get it. Congratulations.

    " .. Big time college sports should remember that they cannot thrive or exist without a healthy higher education .."

    Then why do the Ivys -- even Harvard -- suddenly become more concerned about being competitive?

    Uh .. regional college sports cable networks? That bring in SCHOLARSHIP money?

    Some colleges are dropping football. Good for them. And there are plenty of psuedo-intellectual "academic" programs that ought to go, too.

  • Sports Subsidies -- Reply to JJ
  • Posted by John Thelin , Professor at University of Kentucky on January 19, 2010 at 1:45pm EST

  • Reply to JJ's posting "Inconvenient Facts, Harvard"

    I thought the reports by the Knight Commission in October showed that among the 120 big time (FBS) athletics programs, that many (not all) of those big time football programs lose money. If football cannot even pay for football, how can it be subsidizing women's sports and the so-called non revenue sports? Isn't part of the problem that even though big time football is revenue producing at many institutions, its power to be revenue spending is even greater? Correct me if I am wrong on my facts. Thanks.

  • Look up records
  • Posted by J.J. on January 19, 2010 at 2:15pm EST

  • Like this --

    Football/B-ball rev's -- 100 pts

    FB/BB Costs -- 80 pts

    Gross profit -- 20 pts

    Cost of women/minor-men sports -- 30 pts

    NET LOSS -- -10 pts.

    Math -- it hurts. Also biased, mean, racist, sexist, anti-Chomsky, and hetero-normative.

  • Fleecing
  • Posted by Red Lion on January 19, 2010 at 2:30pm EST

  • JJ,
    Universities have important and urgent choices to make. Reduce the waste and scale back outragious salaries in thier division 1 programs, or continue the bleeding of the university while faculty are furloughed and students get tuition hikes of 30% on top of student athletic fees. This behavior is unsustainable and corrupt.

  • Yup
  • Posted by J.J. on January 19, 2010 at 2:45pm EST

  • "Universities have important and urgent choices to make."

    Yup. Per previous -- "Some colleges are dropping football. Good for them. And there are plenty of psuedo-intellectual "academic" programs that ought to go, too."

    It is one thing to respectfully ask the public to withdraw from college football. Were 20% of fans to cancel their tickets, D-1 football would immediately be in financial trouble. And so would NCAA women's sports.

    It is quite another to perniciously hector politicians to destroy the public's right to watch whatever they want. No one is entitled to do that, IMHO.

    There was once was talk about "destruction of the commons." Hey, if you're going to hector me about your politics -- not gonna happen.

    BTW: I gave up my tickets, years ago. Too much work.

  • The Real Expenses
  • Posted by Mike , administrator on January 19, 2010 at 3:15pm EST

  • All,

    One of the big issues with athletics is the inability of athletic departments and university administrators to calculate the full cost of the enterprise.

    For example, facility and filed maintenance is charged to the physical plant budget, game day security is charged to the university police department, utilities are charged to plant management, athletic scholarships are charged to the student financial aid budget, academic support for student athletes are charged to academic support units and some percentage of coaches salary are charged to other departments.

    It is these types of practices that create the hostility on campuses.

    Better accounting can result in better relations.

  • re: SDSU and Sports Subsidies
  • Posted by Peter C. Herman , Professor, Department of English at San Diego State University on January 19, 2010 at 5:30pm EST

  • When SDSU spokesman, Greg Hand, attributes "the increase to a student fee increase designed to add women's lacrosse and keep the institution in compliance with statewide gender equity guidelines," he is being disingenuous. First, only a very small proportion of the fee increase went to women's sports. The vast majority went towards making up the shortfall caused by the lapsing of a broadband contract that brought in three million dollars. Second, President Weber chose to not put this fee increase to a vote, fearing that it might not pass (the fate of an earlier fee increase vote which Weber then over-ruled). Instead, he opted for something called "alternative consultation," and of course, to everyone's great surprise, he approved the fee increase. But make no mistake, the fee increase was not approved by a majority of the student body.

    As for the the larger issue, the question is not whether universities should subsidize Athletics, even Division 1 Athletics. The question is whether universities should subsidize Athletics while vastly cutting back on the academic side. In a time of economic emergency, should the University continue to subsidize sports programs while the library's acquisitions budget is being slashed, hiring is frozen, class numbers shrink, and class sizes balloon? That, it seems to me, is the real issue.

  • Inconvenient truths
  • Posted by J.J. on January 19, 2010 at 6:30pm EST

  • " .. In a time of economic emergency, should the University continue to subsidize sports programs while the library's acquisitions budget is being slashed, hiring is frozen, class numbers shrink, and class sizes balloon?

    1. Sports can GENERATE cash -- sports cable, new ticket packages, additional alumni appeals.

    2. How much new cash can the English Department generate? How much has it been subsidized?

    3. How many unemployed English PhDs and MFAs are available for immediate employment?

    Think.

  • Specious Arguments
  • Posted by CC Prof on January 19, 2010 at 8:00pm EST

  • JJ ended his first post with this comment: "NCAA men's football and men's basketball like farm teams? Get rid of them -- lose 15% of students and 30% of alum donations. That's a deficit."

    First, does "NCAA men's football and men's basketball" refer to Division I only or to all divisions? Second, even if we are talking only Division I, the conclusion does not apply across the board to all universities. It might very well be true at Podunk U. However, it wouldn't be true at many others. A university with an excellent academic reputation and a bad, money-losing Divsion I football team would be arguably better off in the long run by ditching the football team.

    The good academic reputation would ensure plenty of applicants, and losing some students who don't want to attend because there is no Division I football team will just open up slots for more serious students. It would definitely open up slots for out-of-state and international students. They pay more at public universities. And ditching a football team will generally raise, not lower, the academic reputation of an institution.

    Also, public universities in many states are reducing the number of courses available. California is an obvious example. The University of California campuses with teams could all get rid of football and basketball for next year, and they would not suffer a single net loss in enrollment because of the enormous demand. Students are really competing hard to get onto those campuses right now, and we are supposed to believe that they are doing it in order to follow those teams?

    Many universities do not have football teams. Are we to believe that their enrollment would surge if they added a team? But these public universities are already at full capacity. They seem to be doing fine attracting students without football.

    The idea that one must have certain sports to attract students is the first specious argument. The second concludes that women's sports will disappear without Division I men's football and men's basketball. Not true. This is a false dilemma stating that one can either have Division I football or no women's sports. There are other options. Division I women's sports might disappear, but plenty of schools field Division II and III teams in both men and women's sports. The simplest way to reduce the subsidies for sports is to move down a division and spend much less on the teams. The players still get to play, but they also get to be students.

  • Specious Arguments
  • Posted by J.J. on January 19, 2010 at 8:45pm EST

  • " .. A university with an excellent academic reputation and a bad, money-losing Divsion I football team would be arguably better off in the long run by ditching the football team .."

    Odd. Why are Harvard, Duke, Berkeley, et. al, trying to boost the performances of their teams? As cable sports channels increase? What do you know that they don't?

    " .. And ditching a football team will generally raise, not lower, the academic reputation of an institution .."

    Odd. Why have Harvard and Yale played football for 134 years? What do you know that they don't?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harvard%E2%80%93Yale_football_games

    " .. Many universities do not have football teams. Are we to believe that their enrollment would surge if they added a team?"

    Odd. Many small colleges have recently added football, as well as a few large ones, for reasons such as enrollment, revenue-generation, brand-identity, and alumni relations. What do you know that they don't?

    " .. plenty of schools field Division II and III teams in both men and women's sports .."

    Hmm .. why is that? To bring in students and tuition? Uh .. yes.

  • Missing the Point
  • Posted by CC Prof on January 20, 2010 at 8:30am EST

  • The point of my last post was that school's can play division II or III sports and be successful in terms of enrollment, alumni contributions, etc. JJ seems to think that citing successful division II and III schools with good sports programs and good academic reputations refutes my claims. It actually supports them. Schools playing division II and III can use sports to recruit students, but those sports generally are used to recruit players. How many students go to a university because they want to be fans of its division III sports teams?

    JJ also seems to be under the impression that if someone does something it must be a good idea. So, if a school adds a football team or moves up to division I, then it must be a good idea because they did it. Why would they do it if it weren't smart? Well, maybe they are making a mistake. Considering the fact that the vast majority of division I football teams lose money and are heavily subsidized by the universities, it seems very likely that increasing a focus and spending more money on division I football is a mistake. Saying things like "as cable sport channels increase" doesn't actually mean that these schools are going to make money. Berkeley improved in football recently and the team is still being subsidized despite the increase in cable sports channels. Also, Berkeley received no additional enrollment or tuition money from its newfound prowess in football becasue Berkeley.

    Finally, JJ writes: "Odd. Many small colleges have recently added football, as well as a few large ones, for reasons such as enrollment, revenue-generation, brand-identity, and alumni relations. What do you know that they don't?"

    I know how to add and subtract. If you spend more on the football program than it brings in in revenue, then you are losing money. That's what most of these places are doing. It still might make sense to add a team if it brings in more enrollment, etc., but most of that seems to be happening at the division III level. That's fine. But moving up to division I or adding a division I football team is generally a mistake, especially for large state schools. These schools generally don't have the capacity, in this economy, for more enrollment. Then why do they do it? For glory? Out of stupidity? Because some administrators' pay will increase while the staff and faculty salaries will be cut? Who knows? People do a lot of stupid things.

    The choice is not between no sports and too much spending on sports. That is a false dilemma. The challenge for any serious college administration is to find the right balance. Division III and to some extent Division II, especially with the recently proposed changes to Division II, provide that balance. In general, Division I does not. Division I is all about winning so that the coaches can move up and make more money. I taught at a presitigious private university that played Division I. The women's soccer coaches would tell the players not to study if it was interfering with practice. The coaches were willing to sacrifice the education of the players so that the team could win and the coaches could make more money. That's not the right balance. Such schools would improve their academic reputations if they moved down to a lower division.

  • Déjà vu all over again
  • Posted by Frank G. Splitt , Member at The Drake Group on January 20, 2010 at 11:30am EST

  • It seems like déjà vu all over again.

    Upon the release of the May 19, 2009, Congressional Budget Office Report, "Tax Preferences for Collegiate Sports," Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said: "The fact that congressional analysts had to rely on information collected by a major newspaper for source data highlights how little information is available about how these programs work. Given all the tax benefits involved, tight state budgets, and rising tuition despite the recession, it's pretty clear that Congress needs to engage and policymakers need to know more in order to act as responsible stewards of the tax policy that drives this fundraising and commercial activity."

    Now, at a time of financial peril in higher education, it takes USA TODAY data to show the level of institutional financing for athletics programs is large and growing.
    It is ironic that current federal tax policy helps fuel the NCAA cartel's big-time college sports entertainment businesses where parents, students, and other American taxpayers to help foot the bill for multimillion-dollar salaries for coaches, 'stadium wars,' tax breaks for wealthy boosters, NFL and NBA minor league teams, and other artifacts of the big-time college sports arms race.

    Meanwhile, the NCAA works to further its financial interests and thwart any and all serious reform efforts, especially those that could expose the academic corruption behind their 'student-athlete' ruse or possibly reduce their revenues.

    The big-time college sports entertainment industry continues to distract the public, its elected officials, and others from serious issues confronting our nation—operating as a very large, powerful, and politically connected enterprise that simply does as it pleases seemingly not accountable to anyone, least of all the federal government.

  • Missing the Point
  • Posted by J.J. on January 20, 2010 at 1:30pm EST

  • Inconvenient truth --

    As long as football has to divert its revenues to fund unprofitable NCAA sports -- it will never be profitable.

    That is the undisputed truth -- 100-80-30 = -10.

    This math is on display every day in D.C.

  • An Interpretation of JJ's Views
  • Posted by CC Prof on January 20, 2010 at 6:30pm EST

  • I love the following post by JJ:

    • Inconvenient truths
    • Posted by J.J. on January 19, 2010 at 6:30pm EST

    •  

      " .. In a time of economic emergency, should the University continue to subsidize sports programs while the library's acquisitions budget is being slashed, hiring is frozen, class numbers shrink, and class sizes balloon?"

      1. Sports can GENERATE cash -- sports cable, new ticket packages, additional alumni appeals.

      2. How much new cash can the English Department generate? How much has it been subsidized?

      3. How many unemployed English PhDs and MFAs are available for immediate employment?

      Think. [End of the post]

    Here is what JJ is really saying: "For God's sake man, this is a university. We don't need no stinkin' books. We need a larger budget for shoulder pads."

  • sports subsidies -- response to JJ post
  • Posted by John Thelin , Professor at University of Kentucky on January 21, 2010 at 12:45pm EST

  • JJ

    I do not find your posting with the break down on revenues and expenses to be very persuasive.

    You wrote that fb/bb = 100% of revenues and 80% of costs

    But, that is evasive -- at some FBS programs, f b loses money -- seems what your depiction shows is that at such programs bb is the sport whose revenues prop up the sports that lose money (including football)

    I think one of your statements is not logical: namely, "As long as football has to divert its revenues to fund unprofitable NCAA sports -- it will never be profitable." That is silly. If football is consuming all it brings in to pay for itself (football) and in some cases receiving a subsidy (perhaps from basketball or mandatory student fees), it hardly is propping up (other) nonprofitable sports.

    No matter how much revenue fb brings in, if it spends more than that, it is a drain and not profitable.

  • Prof T -- look at this
  • Posted by J.J. on January 21, 2010 at 5:15pm EST

  • http://www.finops.umich.edu/reports/2008/pdf/2008_financial_report_h.pdf

    An unbiased mind will see that FB and BB have gross profit. And a lot of teams lose money. As simple as that. Plenty of other examples, if one cares to look.

    Inconvenient brutal truth: in toto, major men's NCAA teams subsidize minor NCAA sports, with tens of millions for TV rights.

    To think otherwise is to deny reality. Were the major sports to retain 100% of revenues, the other sports would be immediately bankrupt.

    BTW: CCProf does a great imitation of Rush Limbaugh. What talent!

  • Cherry Picking
  • Posted by CC Prof on January 22, 2010 at 5:00am EST

  • JJ's response to John Thelin is simply inadequate. He cherry picks a report from one university and claims that it shows the general point that men's football and basketball programs are always profitable and, therefore, are subsidizing less profitable sports. But as Professor Thelin points out, this is not true at all schools with such programs. At some basketball is profitable, but not football. At others, vice versa. There are probably some where both are profitable and others where both are not. Picking one school and generalizing to all is a bit too hasty.

    Also, JJ states that "Inconvenient brutal truth: in toto, major men's NCAA teams subsidize minor NCAA sports, with tens of millions for TV rights."

    How could profitable major men's teams at one school subsidize minor sports at another school? Do they send them some of the profit? This seems like some sort of fallacy of composition. It's like saying that since the whole is profitalbe, so are each of its parts.

    It simply doesn't matter what is happening overall. It matters what is happening at each individual institution. Since not all of the division I football programs are profitable, this means that some institutions are subsidzing them. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but why pay the high coaches salaries and all the rest if it is neither advances the educational goals of the institution nor pays for itself?

    As for JJ's comment about Rush Limbaugh, I was a bit surprised the thin skin. JJ disparages English professors and students as useless and unproductive, but takes umbrage when someone pokes fun at his views of what matters at a university.

  • Sports Subsidies -- response to JJ post
  • Posted by John Thelin , Professor at University of Kentucky on January 22, 2010 at 2:00pm EST

  • I wish to respond to JJ's post of January 22nd, response to ProfCC:

    What if athletic directors took to heart JJ's point that women's sports are devouring revenues from football and (men's) basketball. I guess a possible JJ solution might be to eliminate women's sports. This is penny wise and pound foolish. First, athletic departments that did so would then have to pay high legal fees as they predictably would get hit with law suits for violating the law. Second, they would be in hot, deep water with the rest of their university because most likely the federal government would require all federal agencies to suspend research grant payments to the university flagrantly in violation of Title IX. So, JJ, whatever monies would be saved with those nuisance women sports would be miniscule in terms of the moneys then spent and monies lost if athletics directors follow your logic. Frankly, I hope they do!

Print
© Copyright 2010 Inside Higher Ed