Making ends meet, a translation

If you frequent UGA message boards, or have done so over the years, you’ve probably seen data compiled by the prolific AirForceDawg at some point.  I mention this because he’s put me on the scent of some recent financial data that you might find of interest.

The source for the information is the U.S. Department of Education’s Equity in Athletics Data Analysis (EADA) website.  Visit there, and you can find the relevant financial data, i.e., revenues and expenses, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, for America’s collegiate athletic departments.  As the site itself explains,

This database consists of athletics data that are submitted annually as required by the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA), via a Web-based data collection, by all co-educational postsecondary institutions that receive Title IV funding (i.e., those that participate in federal student aid programs) and that have an intercollegiate athletics program.

For example, here’s a snapshot of UGA athletics expenses:

And here’s one for revenues:

If you can’t make the numbers out, allow me to do the simple math for you.

• Revenues:  $157,852,479
• Expenses:  $110,084,458
• Net:  $47,768,021

In case you’re wondering, football’s net during that period was $56,947,313.  Not exactly what you’d call hard times.  At least if you’re not Greg McGarity.

As far as context goes in the SEC, I’m going to outsource that to AFD, who’s already done the clickwork:

FY2017 (i.e., 1 July 2016 – 30 June 2017) Athletics Department Revenue:

1. Alabama: $174,305,613
2. Georgia: $157,852,479
3. Auburn: $147,413,201
4. Louisiana State: $146,934,487
5. Florida: $142,545,938
6. Tennessee: $139,659,550
7. South Carolina: $136,032,845
8. Arkansas: $132,172,997
9. Texas A&M: $130,442,544
10. Kentucky: $122,307,014
11. Ole Miss: $101,857,663
12. Missouri: $90,034,258
13. Mississippi State: $89,696,829
14. Vanderbilt: $80,335,651

FY2017 (i.e., 1 July 2016 – 30 June 2017) Athletics Department Expenses:

1. Alabama: $143,634,940
2. Florida: $137,818,468
3. South Carolina: $135,499,095
4. Louisiana State: $131,722,243
5. Tennessee: $128,944,788
6. Auburn: $125,832,608
7. Texas A&M: $122,615,852
8. Kentucky: $121,688,546
9. Arkansas: $116,112,803
10. Georgia: $110,084,458
11. Ole Miss: $92,908,665
12. Missouri: $90,034,258
13. Mississippi State: $77,773,532
13. Vanderbilt: $69,803,910

FY2017 (i.e., 1 July 2016 – 30 June 2017) Athletics Department Profit:

1. Georgia: $47,768,021
2. Alabama: $30,670,673
3. Auburn: $21,580,593
4. Arkansas: $16,060,194
5. Louisiana State: $15,212,244
6. Mississippi State: $11,923,297
7. Vanderbilt: $10,531,741
8. Tennessee: $10,714,762
9. Ole Miss: $8,948,998
10. Texas A&M: $7,826,692
11. Florida: $4,727,470
12. South Carolina: $533,750
13. Kentucky: $618,468
14. Missouri: $0

First in net (or profit, if you’d prefer the term) — and by a wide margin.  That was accomplished by finishing second in revenue and tenth in expenses.

Butts-Mehre has no business pleading poverty these days, but I suspect you knew that already.  My question is, since McGarity loves to trumpet his fiscal responsibility, why hasn’t he been shouting these numbers to the skies?  Could it be that he might have to explain why the athletic department doesn’t seem to prioritize spending as a path to excellence the way nine others of his peers do?

And for those of you who have been critical of me or anyone daring to question Butts-Mehre’s financial tactics, tell me, are you really okay with an ostensibly non-profit organization operating like this?