I'm trying to wrap my head around all the things being thrown around by players, media members, and college sports commentators the past week. I don't think very many of the people commentating or calling for change really, truly, understand what the financial model looks like. College athletics is a highly unique enterprise, where corporate business intersects with a non-profit/charitable organization. While the more "corporate" revenue streams have grown, through higher media licensing, the model is still dependent on non-corporate type revenue streams to make the budgets work. In fact, we wouldn't have "big time" college athletics to the extent we do, without them. Consider the financial situations of several participants in college athletics at the P5 level.
Georgia:
The Dawgs have the 5th largest athletic department in the country, at $175MM a year. To put that into perspective, across all sports, Georgia produced less than half of what the smallest NFL franchise (Raiders) produced in a single year. Now, the Raiders' revenue streams are entirely corporate (tickets, media rights, merchandise, etc.). $52MM of Georgia's revenues (30% of the total) came from donors, who received tax deductions to donate the money to the athletic department. Another $3.5MM was kicked in by the University of Georgia's students. So, 69% of one of the biggest and most powerful athletic departments in the country's revenues come from something other than people giving the athletic department money.
Kansas State:
We have a $90MM athletic budget. $21MM of which comes from donors, or 23%. We receive no money from the school or students, which explains our standing in the Big 12 and across the country, as much as anything else. Because we could easily "look" bigger by asking our students and University to chip in. Which, if we did, would be revenues the players would have ZERO to do with producing.
Arizona State:
They are the 27th largest athletic department in the country. Last year, they received $30MM in donor contributions. The students kicked in $11MM. The school kicked in another $15MM. Donor, student, and school contributions totalled 47% of their athletic department budgets. That means, ticket and media rights revenue (the corporate side) contributes barely more than 50% of the total pie.
So, I'll ask those clamoring for a pay-for-play model beyond scholarships, where exactly in these numbers is the support that college athletics is growing on the backs of the athletes? Because, it sure seems like a model of over-spending, by tapping about every source other than tickets and media rights they can grab to "keep up the joneses". It sure doesn't feel like a model that is printing money and finding ways to keep it from the players.
If you want to complain about coaching salaries, and come up with ways to pare them back, I'll totally support that. But some of these narratives being thrown around are just utter nonsense. And I think it's because the College Athletics financial model is highly unique, and pretty hard for the layman to understand.
Georgia:
The Dawgs have the 5th largest athletic department in the country, at $175MM a year. To put that into perspective, across all sports, Georgia produced less than half of what the smallest NFL franchise (Raiders) produced in a single year. Now, the Raiders' revenue streams are entirely corporate (tickets, media rights, merchandise, etc.). $52MM of Georgia's revenues (30% of the total) came from donors, who received tax deductions to donate the money to the athletic department. Another $3.5MM was kicked in by the University of Georgia's students. So, 69% of one of the biggest and most powerful athletic departments in the country's revenues come from something other than people giving the athletic department money.
Kansas State:
We have a $90MM athletic budget. $21MM of which comes from donors, or 23%. We receive no money from the school or students, which explains our standing in the Big 12 and across the country, as much as anything else. Because we could easily "look" bigger by asking our students and University to chip in. Which, if we did, would be revenues the players would have ZERO to do with producing.
Arizona State:
They are the 27th largest athletic department in the country. Last year, they received $30MM in donor contributions. The students kicked in $11MM. The school kicked in another $15MM. Donor, student, and school contributions totalled 47% of their athletic department budgets. That means, ticket and media rights revenue (the corporate side) contributes barely more than 50% of the total pie.
So, I'll ask those clamoring for a pay-for-play model beyond scholarships, where exactly in these numbers is the support that college athletics is growing on the backs of the athletes? Because, it sure seems like a model of over-spending, by tapping about every source other than tickets and media rights they can grab to "keep up the joneses". It sure doesn't feel like a model that is printing money and finding ways to keep it from the players.
If you want to complain about coaching salaries, and come up with ways to pare them back, I'll totally support that. But some of these narratives being thrown around are just utter nonsense. And I think it's because the College Athletics financial model is highly unique, and pretty hard for the layman to understand.
