Here’s a good read. Revenues are firm but the expenses reported for tuition for athletes is inflated since it doesn’t cost the schools that much but they report it as full blown cost. Money is moved around the schools but a lot of it isn’t actual cost. Many schools report 20 mil or so for the athletes but the cost is way less since like the article says, unless the school is topped out with enrollment, the extra 400 student athletes are just additive. Most schools keep expanding enrollments. 1 extra kid in that class doesn’t cost much but the school will report him or her as a 30k to 50k a yr expense for the athlete for example. Some schools report expenses as equal to revenue which rarely can happen for ex. True firm costs would be salaried ath employees, trips, equipment etc but the student ath cost is over inflated.
This is the reason that I have always said that the amount of money the universities “claim” they are subsidizing relative to athletics… is mostly FUNNY money !!
It would be like the athletic dept says we have 10 to 20 mil in ath costs for the student athletes to attend then our administration gives 30 mil to cover. The true cost might only be 10 mil in actual dollars. Plus with a billion dollar budget, it’s a small % and they can consider it as a marketing cost which is worth it since marketing with no sports might cost that much. We still need every penny but I think the article explains the accounting tricks.