The Knight Commission maintains a handy, dandy college sports spending database you can access (h/t Jon Solomon). There’s plenty of interesting stuff you can glean from the Georgia page. Start with overall spending trends related to athletes and the general student population.
TRENDS IN SPENDING AND INSTITUTIONAL FUNDING
The median amounts for academic, athletic, and football spending along with institutional funding for athletics are shown on a per capita basis for the defined years. Amounts reflect current dollars.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ACADEMIC SPENDING PER FTE STUDENT+27% from 2005-2012 $8,891 $9,597 $10,064 $10,907 $11,063 $10,823 $10,980 $11,305 ATHLETIC SPENDING PER ATHLETE+98% from 2005-2012 $84,302 $115,025 $119,467 $131,615 $156,833 $149,711 $149,832 $166,524 INSTITUTIONAL FUNDING FOR ATHLETICS PER ATHLETE+7% from 2005-2012 $5,683 $5,569 $5,711 $5,619 $6,241 $6,206 $5,932 $6,075 FOOTBALL SPENDING PER SCHOLARSHIP FOOTBALL PLAYER+96% from 2005-2012 $136,223 $191,055 $178,869 $209,671 $235,174 $206,123 $259,251 $267,178 (Amounts reflect current dollars.)
Two things to note here – one, spending per football player far outstrips pending per student or per student-athlete, and the rate of that spread has increased dramatically over the period measured. Second, it’s spending per student/athlete/football player, not spending on student/athlete/football player being compared in that table.
For perspective, here’s what football spending per scholarship football player, minus scholarship expenses, looks like for that period:
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA+99% from 2005-2012 $119,985 $173,710 $160,226 $188,540 $210,744 $180,778 $231,783 $239,311
That actually increased at a faster rate than overall spending per football player did.
Georgia’s doing nothing unusual there. If you look at the comparisons, B-M is generally right in line with its Southeastern Conference peers when it comes to increasing spending rates over those eight years. (In fact, Georgia lags the SEC median in coaching salary raises per player.)
So where else is that money going? Well, based on outstanding debt, a lot looks to be going into improvements.
TOTAL DEBT OUTSTANDING ON ATHLETIC FACILITIES
Total athletic facilities debt balances owed by the athletics department that have not been previously paid.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA+58% from 2005-2012 $74,657,482 $102,332,801 $99,983,540 $97,473,033 $94,979,017 $92,408,103 $120,770,821 $118,096,570 SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE MEDIAN+76% from 2005-2012 $52,710,061 $57,706,911 $58,846,526 $73,722,043 $89,805,000 $83,915,000 $106,073,955 $92,790,000 FBS MEDIAN+93% from 2005-2012 $20,250,000 $20,139,900 $27,663,090 $26,235,236 $32,055,476 $37,825,837 $33,097,334 $39,155,000
As the next chart on that page indicates, that’s actually a slower rate of debt incurment than the school has accrued overall (+87%). Now it’s unlikely the school and the athletic department are borrowing 100% of their improvement costs. What we can’t tell from that information is what is being spent out-of-pocket for both, and who’s carrying what part of those tabs.
One other thing here – McGarity is spending more on debt service, considerably more, than Damon was.
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE ON ATHLETIC FACILITIES
Payment of principal and interest on athletic facilities debt in the reporting year.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA+147% from 2005-2012 $3,185,357 $5,759,353 $6,048,153 $6,092,059 $6,196,205 $5,717,083 $5,463,055 $7,853,957
Before you start feeling sorry for the reserve fund, keep in mind that the 2012 figure is exactly at the conference median.
So what to take from these numbers? Well, obviously, football is king, but that’s hardly a surprise at either Georgia or the conference it plays in. Almost as obvious, as the money keeps rolling in to athletic departments and relatively little of it flows directly to the players, it’s still going to get spent. Which is more than you can say for spending on the school’s side.
We have an interesting set of priorities, in other words.