At first glance,
… the question that data would appear to beg is this: if, just as they claimed in 2009, there simply isn’t the money today to compensate college athletes, how have expenses increased five-fold in a decade?
But there’s another question worth considering, too. Here’s the breakdown on Alabama’s athletic department revenues and expenses for the 2018-19 fiscal year.
Football made money. Men’s basketball essentially broke even. Every other sport at the school lost money, which means every sport but one is being subsidized in significant part by not having to compensate football players. So, let me ask you another question: Why is it the financial responsibility of unpaid college athletes in revenue producing sports to support money losing programs?
**************************************************************************
UPDATE: With regard to my first question, here are some answers from Bruce Feldman and Andy Staples ($$):
Other lower-profile sport teams at Big Ten and SEC schools can charter planes, which athletic directors note is better for the players’ bodies and for their academics. One Power 5 coach (not in the SEC or Big Ten) talked about how his budget for analysts is less than what some individual analysts make in the SEC. That coach also pointed out that his recruiting staff is limited to one in-house recruiting person, a graphics person and a student in a work-study program. This matters in an age when, he says, “Kids don’t want to read text messages. They respond to graphic messages, and there were some places that have 10 people doing that.”
On the top end of the college football food chain, you have Ohio State. The Buckeyes have 11 full-time recruiting employees. That includes five who work in creative media. Three videographers and two graphic designers work to create the messaging that the program sends to recruits. That 11 number doesn’t include two full-time interns in personnel, one student helping with on-campus visits and two more students who help with graphics and video.
The academic experience, for the win…
Get The Picture 
Reminds me of what happened to my finances after I got married.
LikeLike
Right. And since women’s BBall costs ~$4 million to Men’s ~$16 million, the women SAVED Alabama nearly $12 million!
LikeLike
Just to play devil’s advocate: if football doesn’t subsidize money-losing programs, who will? The tax payer? Tuition-paying students? If we want Olympic sports on campus, and I think most people do, that money has to come from somewhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe the football programs will have to figure out how to survive without $10,000 lockers, lie-flat beds as seats, and playgrounds in their football facilities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To answer your question`question a reference, Yes the taxpayers are subsidizing all of Alabama’s sports by allowing it a 501(c)(3) status.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gaskill, pardon me jumping on you but that argument is a specious, slippery slope fallacy. A tax exemption or a charitable status are not a subsidy any more than your home mortgage interest deduction. The people through their elected representatives simply decline to tax those activities. Money is fungible, and you could argue to the same degree that any inequality is a subsidy.
Now, whether said activities deserve their charitable status is by all means worth discussing.
LikeLike
Your home mortgage deduction is a decision by Congress to increase your net income so you can afford a home. That’s not a secret or speculation; during the 2017 tax code revision debate Congress put that exemption back in in response to the housing industry lobby`s argument that the industry needed buyers getting the subsidy.
Alabama gets money that the Dallas Cowboys wouldn’t get, that being money that would go fof taxes that if can use for coaching salaries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe all true, but I still differ with the idea that a tax exemption means you’re subsidizing Alabama football. If you’ve ever read the Walmart haters say that taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart’s profits because Walmart hires part time and ‘forces’ employees to seek alms for the poor, it’s the same type of free association.
LikeLike
No, it’s not the same. Congress telling Alabama “sign this form and we will take no money from you” is the same ad Congress taking the money then giving it back.
LikeLike
Where I get itchy is in the use of the word “subsidy” in this context. The simplest definition of “subsidy” on dictionary.com is “a grant or contribution of money.” Clearly if a pool of funds were never taxable then that definition would not apply in the same way as receiving an actual check from the government would–even if the economic benefit is similar.
To use the word “subsidy” here would imply that all money belongs to government in the first place (as opposed to the Natural Rights of the owner). Surely something only a passionate Marxist would actually support.
LikeLike
It’s nobody’s responsibility. The simple fix is to keep football Men’s b ball and enough women’s sports to comply with Title IX, everything else becomes a club sport.
LikeLike
Maybe the Ivy League model is the right way. Students can also be athletes, not vice versa. In other words, the universities being institutes of higher learning instead of the tail wagging the dog.
I’m betting on the money defeating the right way.
LikeLike
I actually had no idea it worked this way until I had student go to Dartmouth for basketball this year and found out she had to pay her own way. I think they did cover her room and board, but tuition was not covered.
LikeLike
One of two things happens in that scenario.
A. The product become terrible bc of the lower level of talent and less people watch.
B. Or if somehow interest remains the same or close to the same you still have the issue of billions of dollars being made off of the players’ backs that they don’t get to benefit from.
LikeLike
I’m surprised that (as of this moment) this is the only comment to mention Title IX so far. In layman’s terms isn’t the actual real-world effect of Title IX to require school administrators (at any level of competition) to take any net revenue from men’s sports and pay for “legally equivalent” women’s sports?
LikeLike
You are correct. The people that say “the amateur model doesn’t make sense anymore, this is why we say that.” have no good answer for that. It is not as if revenue has gone up and expenses stayed the same. All most all of the schools athletic programs are doing well to break even. A small few are making a little money and most all of that is cycled back into the program. It is baffling to me that think that just because the numbers are bigger that something has to change. That is akin to saying some one made $25,000 a year in 1981 and today they make $100,000 therefore they are rich. Absurd.
LikeLike
Assuming for the sake of argument I accept your premise here, you still don’t say why that burden should be shifted to college football players.
LikeLike
It has always been that a few sports support the rest. Title nine exacerbated the problem. But the burden has always been on those few sports. If that was a problem then the complaints should have come way before now.
LikeLike
If there was a problem then…
That’s the most laughable argument I have seen ant. By that logic we shouldn’t have gotten rid of Jim Crow and a host of other mistakes from the past.
Here’s your answer: It’s always been inequitable. It’s just that the vast sums of money flowing in now make that inequity far bigger and more obvious.
LikeLike
Why does part of my tuition as an English major help support talented music majors or academic scholarships for kids who will out-earn me by many multiples in Vet, med and engineering fields?
Asking for a friend 🙂
LikeLike
Because you had the choice to major in English as opposed to engineering … completely different.0 I’m not pay-for-play advocate, but
I do think an Olympic model for NLI marketing is an appropriate middle ground between the current cartel and the professionalization of college sports.
LikeLike
Because when you graduate and go into the world you will need quality versus and engineers and the engineers and vets will be in a world where they need folks with liberal arts training.
When you safely drive over a study bridge while taking your dog to the vet you will be glad you helped make their services available.
LikeLike
Right. I know quite a number of folks in my field (cybersecurity) who have never set foot on a college campus. Yet they obtained various certs and gained experience at little cost, and most of them are doing very well (solid incomes, constant job opportunities/advancement, etc.) Meanwhile, the majority of the baristas at my local Starbucks have worthless college degrees with 5-6 figure student debts to pay off.
LikeLike
I love this discussion. Did i mention that I’m a plumber?
LikeLike
I’m sure you’ve polled the baristas at your local Starbucks to find out what degree’s they have and how much school debt they have.
That’s one of those stupid comments that people regurgitate over and over again because it sounds smart when in reality it’s just plain stupid. ESPN wouldn’t be able to pay out all that money if it weren’t for a lot of people with “worthless” liberal arts degrees.
LikeLike
Actually, I have. And one in particular is our next door neighbor’s daughter who majored in sociology at a private college in Penn. She’s living at home and is working there until she figures out what she wants to do. She’s even talking about getting a second degree.
You may find my comments stupid but the numbers don’t lie – there is a massive disconnect between colleges and real world job skills that badly need to be filled. In my field, there are approx 800k unfilled jobs currently available in the U.S. plumbers make more per hour in LA and NY than do psychologists, and so on.
LikeLike
I believe it was the head of the U.S Chamber of Commerce who said a few years back: we are lending money we don’t have, to kids who will never be able to pay it back, to educate them for jobs that no longer exist.
Performing and visual arts degrees are more than double STEM degrees in any given year in the U.S. Insane. Outstanding student debt is 1.2 trillion. Meanwhile, I have friends with no degree, no debt, and are making 200k+ with new job offers thrown their way all the time.
LikeLike
A one person poll isn’t much of a sample size but whatever. I’m not suggesting plumbers or other STEM tracks are not good paths to follow. And I definitely agree that student debt is a huge problem and out of control. My issue was with the over used “my local barista” line and that those degrees are worthless. That’s not true at all. Their are plenty of well paying opportunities out there. Research backs that up. Employers value strong communication, critic thinking and research skills that are developed in liberal arts and humanities fields. Those skills translate across a number of fields which makes them easily employable. My wife was an English major and had no problem finding a good job with plenty of opportunities for advancement. I have a fine arts degree and am doing plenty well for myself. Not every person that has a liberal arts degree is going to get a good paying job, but that doesn’t make it worthless. I’m glad your friends are doing so well but there are plenty of people out there that don’t have degrees that aren’t doing so hot too.
LikeLike
Agree with most, especially those without a degree who aren’t doing well. However, IMO, simply put colleges are not doing a good job preparing kids for a 21st century workplace overall, and again there is a massive disconnect that hasn’t been addressed. Either way, I certainly don’t believe my remarks were stupid, as again many others who would know have opined the same.
I personally don’t know anyone in my field who has a degree in the humanities and such, and again there is a massive labor gap. Sure, you probably could get a degree in history, arts or whatever and still make that transition, but you are far better off (and prepared) getting a more applicable degree that is more easily applied to a growing/needed field.
LikeLike
Respectfully, you chose that field knowing full well that your major will not carry you far in today’s marketplace. The fact that colleges continue to be misaligned with today’s economy, and offer majors of no real value while sending their students into debt in the process, is actually sad if not an outright sham.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Would love to see a poll question on this.
A) Status quo socialism. Yes, revenue athletes are undercompensated, but they provide the funding that lifts the greater good. Best available option to infringe the fewest people.
B) Pure free markets. Compensate the revenue athletes, and nonrevenue sports will have to subsist on their own economic merits. Some will likely disappear or become a non-scholarship activity. Who cares.
C) Best of both worlds. Compensate the revenue athletes, and find another revenue source to subsidize the nonrevenue sports (tuition fees, taxes, whatever). We should be able to make it work so everybody gets what they want.
LikeLike
That’s the most absurd question/take you’ve ever posted.
LikeLike
By the way, it sure is convenient how you ignored my first question.
LikeLike
I guess I ignored it because I’m pissed off that I didn’t get any of the money , and I still had to pay $50 bucks for a $15 sweater at the Mizzou game because I was freezing.
LikeLike
I feel ‘ya there, Dawg. 🙂
LikeLike
If the football players are solely responsible for their programs profit , Whats up with these sorry women and track runners ? They should be ashamed right ? If they can’t produce at least a break even financial performance – they should have to chip in, right ?
Why couldn’t those lousy parents train those elite swimmers to also be profitable like the football parents did—- don’t they get it ?
LikeLike
Your reading comprehension skills need work. I never said they are solely responsible. But, in the sense that they don’t receive compensation for their services, those funds are used elsewhere, everything from administrative salaries to facility expenses to, yes, support of non-revenue programs. Or do you think that schools would make up the difference out of their own pockets if they had to start paying football players?
Your suggestion that it’s the non-revenue athletes who should feel some sense of responsibility is absurd. They aren’t the ones fighting for amateurism tooth and nail.
LikeLike
Why is it the financial responsibility of unpaid college athletes in revenue producing sports to support money losing programs?
Sorry pal, whatever level of responsibility you are laying at the feet of football players you must also impose on players
of other sports.
Obviously, none of the players have anything to do with what sports the spending public admire.
The answer to your original question is it’s the wrong question. The revenue program players are not at all responsible for the profitability of their program nor any other.
Of course my suggestion the non revenue players should feel responsibility is absurd – that was the point I was making!
The question is , now that we’ve agreed that part is absurd , how do you not find the other side equally absurd ?
LikeLike
Until those kids are put in administrative charge of their respective athletic departments, your argument is nonsense. The responsibility lies with schools, and schools alone.
LikeLike
One of the two of us has a screw loose today. I think it’s you.
Yes it lies with schools and schools alone. I don’t know why you brought the players into it in the first place.
LikeLike
Econ 101 isn’t that hard. If schools ended their illegal labor cartel tomorrow, college athletes in revenue producing sports would receive a share of what they help generate. Those funds would no longer be available to spend in other areas.
LikeLike
Ok , champion of the free market.
Why hasn’t there been a successful alternative ?
The NFL surely has the capital to put something together if they want to – and you know those are some greedy sons of bitches.
Why is there no alternative for Mr. 5 Star ?
LikeLike
Is this supposed to be some kind of excuse for letting schools violate antitrust law?
LikeLike
Yes it is. The market won’t change much , even if college players are allowed to be paid. It’s a wasted legal effort. Sure , it will impact a few – just like the NLI – but schools will still have other programs to pay for and football will still be doing most of the heavy lifting. You’ll still be able to ask the same question about subsidy , only the degree would be a little less.
If it is possible for college age players to be paid as the professionals they are very similar to, that would be happening already outside of the collegiate realm.
LikeLike
Your real problem is that we show up for the G , and we don’t really care whose names are on the back.
LikeLike
Whatever you say, boss.
LikeLike
The NFL would put minor league football together if they thought people would attend, watch, and buy the merchandise and turn a profit. It’s a money loser pure and simple.
If you don’t think the NFL and NBA would love to have that pie of money the colleges currently split, they would do it in a New York minute.
LikeLike
Ok, I never get involved much with race related stuff, as I personally live my life treating people strictly by their individual makeup or character; not by their race, religion, sexual preferences, etc. Not to mention I can’t stand race baitors like Al Sharpton and his ilk. With that said, I must admit that the first thing that popped into my head when I saw this is that you have predominantly black athletes of a certain sport (football) subsidizing predominantly white athletes (both men and women) of most of the other sports (golf, swimming, rowing, tennis, etc.)
This begs the question: if football was a sport mostly played by white athletes – who also were bringing in all the revenue – while the remaining sports were mostly played by black athletes, would things be different than they are currently? Or, let’s say that tennis was the #1 sport in the U.S., and you had all these U.S. Open like stadiums throughout college campuses packed to the brim on weekends cheering on the college teams. And football, meanwhile, was played with little fanfare, with just a few bleachers scattered about here and there. In that case, would tennis programs be footing the bill for football and the remaining sports?
I’m honestly dead serious about this, and I’m curious if things would be different overall if the social or racial dynamic was turned on its head a bit.
LikeLike
Lol – hate race baiting huh ?
I’m pretty sure we like the sports we like , regardless of the skin color of the people playing them.
In your scenario , if Tennis was the national fever , I’m confident there would be magnificent stadiums for it as you suggested – and also that it would support other programs or initiatives per the schools’ agendas.
LikeLike
What are the numbers behind those expenses? Do those expenses include the costs for scholarships in them? Does it amortize food costs across all sports equally or on a pro rata basis based on the number of scholarships given? Are facilities upkeep put into those expenses? How are those expenses allocated for multi-purpose facilities like a Stegeman Colosseum, which gets used for basketball and gymnastics at a minimum?
As to revenues, where does the donor money come into the equation? Is the revenue money loaded mostly into football? How much of the revenue is from tickets for attendance versus sponsorship money for, say, scoreboard sponsorships?
I feel like a ton more information is needed regarding the expenses before I’d believe that every sport except football loses money. As we have come to learn with basically every professional sport, fun with accounting can make nearly all profits disappear if that is what the owners/ADs want to have the numbers show.
LikeLike
How did women’s ROWING earn about the same as gymnastics?
LikeLike
I saw that too. Women’s Rowing and XC each brought in more revenue than women’s BB. They must have a hell of a rowing team.
LikeLike
Yeah that stood out to me also, on both ends. 2.4 million in expenses and over a million in revenue. I’m curious as to how that much money is made from people watching rowing.
LikeLike
Wasn’t there some stink a couple of years ago about the Bama women’s rowing? Giving scholarships to recruit’s sisters or something and big donations to that particular program?
I’m too lazy too look…
LikeLike
College presidents allowed football to create the excesses because they learned they could use football to fund raise for their university. Meanwhile the public became enamored with the national championship and recruiting rankings national championships so the market fueled the fire. Don’t forget becoming the minor leagues of the NFL, which the NFL should be made to subsidize if you think about it. The next thing you know TV execs learned they could make big money too. Why would any of them think about paying the players along the way? The minor and women sports has become the excuse for not paying the ones who bring in the big bucks.
LikeLike
“Why is it the financial responsibility of unpaid college athletes in revenue producing sports to support money losing programs?”
When the lawmakers start making the sausage, they’re not going to be concerned with this question. The “CFB players or the world unite” argument is going to get drown out by the intersectional feminists. It will all be about virtue signalling to women athletes. Tax hikes or more money for tuition (in light of the student loan crisis) are political losers, and Title IX won’t let you kill money losing women sports.
So, who’s the smallest, least vocal, least enduring constituency that they can ignore while preserving the status quo?
LikeLike
Bill, at least in the context of NIL rights, that’s a complete red herring. And in other areas, I have yet to see a single court rule that Title IX means equal spending, rather than equal opportunity. Doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but you shouldn’t act like that’s a given.
LikeLike
You can count the number of Ja Morant level impacts across all college sports with 1 hand during most years. But go ahead on your antitrust crusade. Thing is , I doubt even Ja Morant has the time to help you. He’s pretty busy these days handling his $8 million salary , plus whatever Nike stuck in his pocket. Poor bastard.
LikeLike
LOL. You should keep reading the thread.
Basketball recruits aren’t getting money under the table because the front of the jersey matters.
LikeLike
Wait a second. How do we on the one hand excoriate one sport for it’s unabashed profit motive, but make a pro-market argument with regard to the money-losing sports. As in “the sports losing money are being propped up by the ones making money. To hell with the ones losing money.” To me, that’s the best argument the NCAA has. Kids in other sports are getting their bodies and brains ruined, too.
LikeLike
Before everyone lays into me, I’m only just now starting my second cup of coffee, which happens somewhere between dropping my teenage daughters off to school, briefly contemplating just going back home and getting in bed, and ultimately deciding that college won’t pay for itself. Morning is an emotional minefield for me.
LikeLike
The framework of universities jumping conference for TV money has somewhat driven up expenses from non revenue sports. Mickey and Company has driven the hunt for the almighty dollar to the extents of Pittsburgh and Syracuse in the ACC. That was pure basketball alone.
The identity of regional to nation wide now is redundant. Travel expenses are absurd. The logistics of planning and setting up flights, hotels and meals through these long distances create the majority of cost of expense. Look per example at UGA’s GymDawg, Men and Ladies Golf. The tennis team just finished up a trip in Florida. Cost is paramount as the size of the teams grow in numbers and where contests are located. To attract top athletes universities enhance the schedule to that of playing on LPGA, PGA, Olympic type venues, MLB sites. Even the SEC football stadiums often are larger than NFL stadiums.
Why would not playing games, meets and contests in neighboring states is bewildering. The thought that Arkansas State, Western Carolina and Appalachian State would be easier travel than scheduling UNC, Clemson, Wake Forrest or neighboring locals.
Isolation of conference bodies into separate corporate entities ( just ask Boise State ) have consumed universities. Student athletes on these road trips were first initially had to get school work done w/laptops on the road which now has progressed to student athletes not going to brick and mortar classes and function interactively within the athletic sites. Who knows who actually does the work. Recently a entire class of Georgia Highway Patrol was dismissed/fired for cheating on computer testing.
So let’s not be precocious and assume everything in these figures are above board either. Charging students athletic fees and then not allowing access to tickets where the student section become more absorbed by donor donation tickets, club level and suites. Title IX is not the only reason non revenue sports absorb more monies as the extents of schedules and monies spent on road excursions eat up 90% of the red lines.
LikeLike