The SEC’s rising tide hit Alabama and Auburn with FOIA requests to show us the money.  You won’t be surprised to learn 2016 was a berry, berry good year.

Here’s Auburn’s story, year over year:

Auburn Athletic Finances

Year Total Revenue Total Expenses Surplus/Deficit
2016 $140,070,593 $124,864,399 $15,206,194
2015 $124,657,247 $115,498,047 $9,159,200

A $16 million increase in revenue and a $6 million bump in profit is none too shabby.

Alabama did just fine, as well.

According to documents filed with the NCAA, the school’s profit increased 13.1 percent in 2016 to $18.7 million.

…To compare to Alabama’s $18.7 million total profit, Auburn’s athletics department reported a $15.2 million surplus. Auburn’s $140 million revenue was a school record, as was Alabama’s $164 million in income.

Georgia, as you no doubt know, isn’t in any hurry to respond to open records requests, so we’ll be waiting a while to hear what a great job Greg McGarity’s done in that regard.  But if you’re of a mind to triangulate, you can find Georgia’s 2015 numbers here:  $116,151,279 in total revenue and $19,591,972 in “surplus” (nice euphemism there).  If things are fairly analogous — and you’d think they would be — Butts-Mehre is positively rolling in dough.



Filed under Georgia Football, It's Just Bidness, SEC Football

12 responses to “The SEC’s rising tide

  1. Russ

    The scene inside B-M

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Athens Dog

    You would think there’s enough to fix the bathrooms………

    Liked by 1 person

    • The Georgia Way

      Our Office of Sustainability has advised us that toilet paper is bad for the environment.

      It is the responsibility of all Georgia fans to support our Green Initiative.

      Our Green Initiative is not just good for the environment. It is good for Georgia.


  3. If we are rolling in the dough why would we not be ready, willing and happy to disclose that fact. I would think a AD who has piloted his program too stunning profitable heights would love showing the world how good a job he has done. (note) A good job making money NOT a good job winning . Further it is my understanding that Alabama’s FOI law allows for even more time to respond than GA’s newly amended one… as theorized weren’t the AD’s at Aubarn,which suxs, and Aladamnbama more than happy to reveal increased profits well ahead of when it was required?

    Liked by 1 person

    • heyberto

      Well.. big surpluses mean the natives will be restless about all kinds of things. Record income AND a ticket price increase? Tell me again why can’t we get the bathrooms in Sanford addressed? Why can we not make the concourse traffic flow better?


      • Dog in Fla

        Are you a CEO, CFO or other executive facing similar charges? Why should you spend money to fix bathrooms and concourses that someone else noticed?


  4. heyberto

    And people are griping at those that are griping about bathrooms. How dare we not address recruiting needs first and foremost? I say, show me why you need to increase my ticket and donation amounts and give me nothing for it when you’ve got this kind of dough raking in? I say why can’t we have both?


  5. Mark

    If the UGA Athletic Department is a non-profit organization, then “surplus” is indeed the correct word from an accounting perspective – at least according to my accounting profs 40+ years ago.

    Only in the for-profit world is the excess of income over expenses called “profit.”


    • A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

      Profit and surplus spend (or wind up in the reserve fund) exactly the same way. 😉


      • IRS

        Mark raises and interesting and valid point. If the UGA Ath Dpt is a non-profit and they made and kept a profit of damn near $20 Mil why isn’t somebody questioning the tax exempt status of that entity? And Bama and Auburn and FU………


  6. I think the IRS should question the tax status of these organizations. They look like for-profit businesses now to anyone with a bit of sense. The fig leaf athletic associations hide behind is the provision of scholarships to these athletes. If/when this changes to a pay for play model or the athletes are deemed to be employees, this whole tax structure comes crashing down on the IRS’s first challenge.


  7. Pingback: Pity the poor McGarity. | Get The Picture