Some Schools Spend 10 Times More On Athletes Than Students: Report

The gap between money spent on academics and sports is massive at some schools, according to a recent report (.pdf) from the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.

The Associated Press has more:

The report notes that from 2005 to 2008, athletics spending increased at more than twice the rate of academic spending at nearly all of the 103 Football Bowl Subdivision schools. On average, FBS schools spend more than six times as much on athletics per capita than on academics. And most schools are forced to tap general university funds to balance their athletics budgets.

The disparity between student and athlete spending can be seen in the chart below. The Southeastern conference has the highest average athlete price tag, at $144,592 per athlete. Compared to an average of $13,410 spent per student, the rate of spending per athlete is 10.8 times higher than the rate of spending per student.

The report predicts that some athletic budgets might top $250 million by 2020.

What do you think? Should schools' athletic spending be regulated? Join in the discussion below.

Comments

[Forester]

03:40 PM on 06/22/2010

Football Graduation Rates: Pac-10

Stanford 94%
Washington 66%
Oregon State 60%
Oregon 59%
UCLA 59%
Washington State 57%
Arizona State 56%
USC 55%
Cal 44%
Arizona 39%

note: this is not because they all became pros.

[abuja19]

08:06 AM on 06/22/2010

Don't get me wrong, I like my college football......

but I like succeeding in academics more.

[DavidWyld]

07:58 AM on 06/22/2010

And we are surprised??? Maybe we should be shocked by the size and magnitude of the disparity (10 times - a wow number!0, but in a nutshell, this report shows that football does rule and drive the whole athletics bus - and increasingly, all of this is becoming more - not less - intertwined with the institution and its fortunes (or lack thereof)!

David http://wyld-about-money.blogspot.com/

[REDSTATEREFUGEE]

11:06 PM on 06/21/2010

University campuses being infected by the national virus of sports mania should come as no surprise. Our campuses are simply reflections of society at large.....and we are sports obsessed.

Several decades ago, when I was a grad student at UT-Austin, the number one ranked football department possessed a highly paid "Brain Coach," whose sole role in life was to assure that all of the players passed their courses. Of course, as a full-charge teaching assistant, I was making the bare minimum for my services. The BC earned as much as some of my full professors.

I hate to be pessimistic, but I do not see the situation changing soon....

[1unaveragewoman]

10:17 PM on 06/21/2010

The biggest factor not discussed is the millions donated from alumni groups when you have a winning program. That makes these programs extremely profitable.
Also don't blame the athlete for increased costs. An athletic scholarship is really a work study program.
In reality players are working more and getting less. They are required to attend more practices, play more games, and take lighter class loads to accomidate the more strenuous schedules to increase the revenue. Even academic scholarship students are not required to spend 30-40 hours a week to pay back the school. In return, they aren't guaranteed a scholarship, it's renewed yearly and more are released from the team before their eligibility is up to make room for another "better" player. They also aren't guaranteed a degree if they need to finish after their eligibility is up. Graduation rate average is 61% among D1 football players. http://stanford.scout.com/2/952555.html
This report calls for more disclosure on how the NCAA disperses money to the schools after the Bowl games and tournaments. If people knew how much the school & coach got for winning a bowl game and how much the alumni donations increased after winning vs the players scholarship they would see the disparity.
The few prestige athletes that get the publicity do not represent the average players experience. Most athletes never go to the pros and recieve a payout, they play because they love the game and/or they want to get an education.

[Ohsnap]

10:54 PM on 06/21/2010

But what is the mission of a public university? Churn out a small percentage of pro athletes, or make sure students are ready for the workforce? It says the general fund is sometimes used to balance athletic budgets. It is fine by me that those that make a profit can hold their own, but we also need to be assured that public universities isn't a glorified OTA for the pro sports.

[McMarcia]

05:25 AM on 06/22/2010

Alumni donations are great....but according to the study they do not cover all costs, the general fund is covering athletic dept costs at most universities studied. That means athletic directors blew up their budgets to massive sizes, but the increase in alumni donations did not cover all of it, so the gap has to be covered by tuition dollars.....which means tuition is higher....which means student loans are higher....

[500 a]

09:27 PM on 06/21/2010

I am a supporter of college sports and extra-curricula activities. These programs add to the undergraduate experience. Many student-athletes are excellent in academics and actively involved in community activities. However, that type of spending in the SEC is way out of line. They've got to get this back inline with the values and purpose of higher education. So many of the BBall and FBall programs now resemble semi-pro teams. New stadiums, fancy gyms and other big-ticket items have got to be stopped. The alumni are being rung dry to support athletics instead of the general educational support for all students.

[runfellow]

07:50 AM on 06/22/2010

"Many student-athletes are excellent in academics and actively involved in community activities"

Hahahahahaha, as a former D-1 college athlete, I must disagree... I'm not sure what made you think this but the vast majority of student athletes in the major sports (with a few notable exceptions) are dumb as rocks and the only community involvement I ever saw was when it was forced upon them by the school.

[500 a]

12:22 PM on 06/22/2010

Hi!
I actually have direct knowledge and experience with student athletes in D-1. Of course, those in the major sports may not be the best academically (BBALL/FBALL). However, students in other sports (especially individual sports like swimming, tennis, track) have been smart, motivated, and graduated with distinction. We tend to see the stories of the 'star' players in D-1 and low grades/bad behavior. Other student athletes know they need an education for their future and have no illusions that their sport will support them.

[113]

06:14 PM on 06/21/2010

Of course it's the SEC with the biggest disparity. Southerners are dumb as rocks and are proud of it.

[JSiobhan]

02:43 AM on 06/22/2010

SEC=Southerners=Dumb People How much forethought did it take to come to that brilliant conclusion?

In the South, the cost per athlete is higher because college football is more competitive in the region. For the 2009-2010 football season, Southern schools dominated the Top 25 Polls with at least 40% of the slots. SEC and ACC teams comprise of 30% of the Top 50. College football in the South is a cultural institution that happens to be housed in universities. Southerners never viewed these powerhouse football programs under the pretense of extensions of higher learning. The primary mission of Athletic Departments at SEC Conference universities is to win football game.

Does the report consider the economic impact and the amount of tax revenue the Southern states receive when schools host major college football games? The cost per athletic is a minor investment compared to the millions pumped into local businesses on Game Day.

Silly me. Why analyze the report's data from a cultural and economic perspective? As a "dumb as rocks" Southerner, what would I know.

[113]

05:14 PM on 06/22/2010

There is no doubt that SEC's athlete programs generate a ton of revenue for the universities and surrounding businesses BUT the discussion is a discussion of values. How should Universities be spending money, mostly on teaching students or on athletics? Bottom line is this, a school like Texas did not want to join the SEC because the SEC's public universities are inferior academically to UT. Other conferences may not be the football powerhouse that the SEC is but the other conferences have better academics. ACC, Big12, Pac10, Big East all have better academic schools than the SEC does.

And when you live in different regions of the country (as i have) you get to see first hand what those cultures value. So yes, as i said above, this is a CULTURAL question and this report begs the question, what do we value? The south generally values athletics over academics, specifically football. I love football but academics should always be the first priority of a university, not feeding the football program.

[huffponewbie]

05:33 PM on 06/21/2010

I've stuck up for college sports on other threads, but this is making me think twice. Absolutely ridiculous!

[500 a]

09:27 PM on 06/21/2010

I know. This is just too overboard.

[grod805]

01:24 AM on 06/22/2010

I agree. Athletes get so many perks. At my college, these kids are traveling every weekend! Hotels, flights, it all adds up.

[Puck342]

05:27 PM on 06/21/2010

I think all sports spending should be funded by a seperate financial means, exempt from 501(c)(3) exemption. I think that the OSU football team, since it makes so much money, is on TV so much, and helps NO ONE DO ANYTHING (except maybe get into the NFL, where they'll have enough money), shouldn't be exempt from taxes. Or funded publicly.

That way, sports can fund sports and that economic entity can go and throw balls around and slap each other's asses all the live long day.

And education can be publicly funded and actually worth something.

[McMarcia]

05:26 AM on 06/22/2010

actually the OSU program is one of the few in the black, OSU funds all the other teams AND gives money towards the general fund for academic financial aid to all students. Look it up!

[Paul Russell]

04:41 PM on 06/21/2010

Time for schools to lose their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status if they are going to continue screwing over students for non-educational purposes

Period

[Senseid]

04:27 PM on 06/21/2010

No kidding??? There is nothing surprising about this report.

[Ann Fuller]

04:07 PM on 06/21/2010

They should do a study of Community College's too. The one I went to gave scholarships to athletes who did not do anything to contribute to the campus while many student organizations who did make the campus and community a better place were lucky to get $100 see money annually to kick start their efforts. It was so bad that an organization I belonged to booked a college vehicle months in advance but was told last minute that we would have to rent one privately because the golf team needed the one we reserved.
Academics be damned all hail the student athletes!

[charlot]

04:05 PM on 06/21/2010

This is hardly surprising. Our culture has placed far more importance on athletic ability than on intelligence and academic achievement for quite some time.
Good athletes, regardless of how deplorable their personal behavior, are idolized. Great minds, however, are dismissed as "elitists" or "geeks," and often ridiculed or ignored altogether.
It starts with high school, or even earlier: Cut all kinds of funding for academics, and people see that as necessary. Dare to cut so much as a dime from athletic programs, and you'll have a lynch mob on your doorstep in short order.

[Chaesonian]

03:51 PM on 06/21/2010

Those that provide revenue potential will always be more monetarily compensated than those that contributes social equity.

[Saxton]

05:07 PM on 06/21/2010

Well said and sadly, very true.

[IDIOTA]

03:43 PM on 06/21/2010

I am more concerned about the University of California losing 20 billion dollars because of reckless investing on Wall Street.