Financial Fair Play Works Only in a Different Division I

[TexasTerror]

From the By Law Blog on the NCAA web site...

I'm pretty sure that if you removed institutional support from many of our FCS institutions, that they would be unable to remain at the Division I level - that is, unless they based student athletic fee votes (or however the process may work) to replace the institutional support $ for $.


Massive new TV contracts, fights over automatic qualification to the Bowl Championship Series, and huge donations have conspired to push to the back of the mind a fact that most people tend to either accept as gospel or challenge with force: that Division I athletics is not a profitable business.

Whether Division I athletics is profitable has been hotly debated, a debate that centers around one line item in a major Division I athletic department’s budget: institutional support. Institutional support comes in many varieties: student fees, not charging the athletic department tuition, an annual budget infusion, and even taxpayer support. The NCAA normally takes care to point out how few athletic departments would break even or make money without institutional support. Opponents disagree with removing this income as it is still income.

http://www.ncaa.org/blog/2011/05/financial-fair-play-works-only-in-a-different-division-i/

[Lehigh Football Nation]

That's one interesting article.

It touches on, but does not adequately (IMO) talk about the biggest reason for the discrepancy: that team sports are to be considered an education in and of themselves, not a revenue source that should be judged on their money-making capabilities. Schools support team sports because they make for a better educational experience for all involved, not because the motive is profit or even to make it self-sustaining.

I do kind-of agree with his answer (though nobody, to my knowledge, is asking the question) that financial fair play doesn't have a place in the economics of Division I athletics. I do think an awful lot of sunlight needs to be shined on the financials of Division I sports departments, but requiring teams to "break even" ignores the reality that athletic departments' financial numbers do not break even - and that "break even" shouldn't really be the goal, anyway. English soccer clubs are businesses. Colleges and Universities are not.

[TexasTerror]

It touches on, but does not adequately (IMO) talk about the biggest reason for the discrepancy: that team sports are to be considered an education in and of themselves, not a revenue source that should be judged on their money-making capabilities. Schools support team sports because they make for a better educational experience for all involved, not because the motive is profit or even to make it self-sustaining.

Depends on the school... with the changing financial climate, some schools have had to limited their institutional support and has asked for the department to pull more weight financially in order to not worry about any 'in the red' when the final budget comes about. Several of the recent student fee increases I have seen create some new money, but most of the times, is a replacement for the cutting of institutional support.


I do kind-of agree with his answer (though nobody, to my knowledge, is asking the question) that financial fair play doesn't have a place in the economics of Division I athletics. I do think an awful lot of sunlight needs to be shined on the financials of Division I sports departments, but requiring teams to "break even" ignores the reality that athletic departments' financial numbers do not break even - and that "break even" shouldn't really be the goal, anyway. English soccer clubs are businesses. Colleges and Universities are not.

And even those departments that list that they 'break even' - how honest are those numbers? I do not think there is a cut and dry way on how departments handle their athletic department budgets since every situation is unique to itself.