Tweet
I found a couple interesting reports that touch on this issue of whether some schools' athletic departments "make money" and are "self sufficient"...meaning they supposedly do not use taxpayer money..
Here are the notable points simply stated...
1- even if some school can claim their athletic department "makes money", since they wouldn't exist without the university itself, and since they are a sub-unit, or a department within the university, then it is generally considered that ALL athletic department funds are in reality - university funds.
In other words...just like a cashier at Walmart - if their cash register has a profit at the end of the day - whose profit is it, the cashier's or the establishment (Walmart's)?
Case after case - have legally been decided to prove that all funds within the athletic department are university funds ..and legal experts & university personnel agree...
"All of the money, they said, is public money subject to the same scrutiny
and open-records requirements (rules) that exist for all government
operations (and all public funds)..
It doesn't matter that they have private funds. They're using public resources.."
2) Despite what they claim, virtually every single university and college still has to use student funds or taxpayer money to support athletics.
In other words...
"without such outside funding (from student funds & taxpayer sources),
fewer than 10 percent of athletic departments (in D-I and none in any other division)
would have been able to support themselves with ticket sales, television
contracts and other revenue- generating sports sources. In fact, most would
have lost more than $5 million"
3) The very few who are "self-sufficient" really are still most likely drawing funds away from the academic end of the university as the big time donors channel contributions towards athletics for the benefits they receive and would have otherwise supported academics more.
Also - of the FEWER than 40 university athletic departments who can lay claim to self-sufficience, many are using university facilities such as offices, gyms, personnel, and infrastructure that are paid for by the taxpayers and students, and they are NOT counting this in their "balance sheet".
In other words..they are being provided free "room and board and other benefits" by the university and yet not claiming that on their balance sheet.
No doubt if they had to move off campus, build all their own facilities and operate fully independently of the university, they'd fail miseranly to even come close to balancing their budget.
Here are the notable points simply stated...
1- even if some school can claim their athletic department "makes money", since they wouldn't exist without the university itself, and since they are a sub-unit, or a department within the university, then it is generally considered that ALL athletic department funds are in reality - university funds.
In other words...just like a cashier at Walmart - if their cash register has a profit at the end of the day - whose profit is it, the cashier's or the establishment (Walmart's)?
Case after case - have legally been decided to prove that all funds within the athletic department are university funds ..and legal experts & university personnel agree...
"All of the money, they said, is public money subject to the same scrutiny
and open-records requirements (rules) that exist for all government
operations (and all public funds)..
It doesn't matter that they have private funds. They're using public resources.."
2) Despite what they claim, virtually every single university and college still has to use student funds or taxpayer money to support athletics.
In other words...
"without such outside funding (from student funds & taxpayer sources),
fewer than 10 percent of athletic departments (in D-I and none in any other division)
would have been able to support themselves with ticket sales, television
contracts and other revenue- generating sports sources. In fact, most would
have lost more than $5 million"
3) The very few who are "self-sufficient" really are still most likely drawing funds away from the academic end of the university as the big time donors channel contributions towards athletics for the benefits they receive and would have otherwise supported academics more.
Also - of the FEWER than 40 university athletic departments who can lay claim to self-sufficience, many are using university facilities such as offices, gyms, personnel, and infrastructure that are paid for by the taxpayers and students, and they are NOT counting this in their "balance sheet".
In other words..they are being provided free "room and board and other benefits" by the university and yet not claiming that on their balance sheet.
No doubt if they had to move off campus, build all their own facilities and operate fully independently of the university, they'd fail miseranly to even come close to balancing their budget.
Comment