While the NCAA likes to promote the narrative that athletic revenues support academics, claiming that more than 90 percent of NCAA revenue goes to support student-athletes and that athletic programs help their school’s academics, the reality is that direct financial support for academics beyond scholarships (a significant investment, but not one that benefits non-athletes) is quite limited at most schools. According to a Chronicle of Higher Education analysis, “Less than $1 of every $100 in revenue generated by major college athletic departments at public colleges is directed to academic programs.” Perhaps even more notably, while over 40 athletic departments reported giving money to their schools for academic purposes between 2011 and 2014, only 10 actually gave more than they received in subsidies, and only six of those received no subsidies whatsoever:

That doesn’t mean that other athletic departments are just raking in money without any costs (money from revenue sports at most schools is used to subsidize other sports, and if the revenue sports don’t draw well, those sometimes need to be subsidized by the university; the NCAA claims only 20 of its schools profit from athletics), and it doesn’t mean that the only impact an athletic program has on a school is its direct transfers to the overall institution or lack thereof (athletic programs can also be important for marketing and attracting new students). Still, it does show that in most cases, athletic programs’ revenues aren’t directly providing significant funding for academics. Also, even the 10 schools that are funding academics from athletics aren’t doing so at a rate proportional to their revenue increases:

Of the 10 colleges whose financial documents showed a net contribution to their campus, four were in the Big Ten Conference, four were in the Southeastern Conference, and two were from the Big 12. The money transferred to academics from those 10 programs grew 13.5 percent from 2011, when the NCAA first started tracking such spending, to 2014.

The excess revenue, or profits, generated by those programs grew nearly 500 percent during that time, according to an analysis of the reports, which The Chronicle obtained through public-records requests.

The article does note that not all athletic departments actually have surpluses, thanks to how capital projects are budgeted.  However, Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith says more departments could potentially share revenues with their schools:

Athletics finance officers say the NCAA reports do not account for certain expenses, which can make programs’ surpluses look larger than they really are. For example, they say, the reports do not require them to include all of their capital expenditures, amounts that can total $5 million or more a year for some programs.

But athletic departments with the means to help different parts of campus have a responsibility to do so, says Gene Smith, athletic director at Ohio State University, whose program reported giving $36 million for academic use between 2011 and 2014. That represented 6 percent of his department’s revenue.

“When you’re at our level, we should be doing that,” he says. “But not as many schools as we all think have that capability.”

Ohio State has experienced big increases in television revenue and steady sales of football tickets, money that only a handful of elite programs can count on.

But Mr. Smith believes that more athletic departments could share money with their campuses if they made it a priority. “It is a behavioral thing,” he says, “that I think some places need to shift.”

We’ll see if other schools start following suit, but for now, the NCAA can’t claim too strongly that athletics are funding academics. At most of its schools, it seems to be the other way around.

[The Chronicle of Higher Education]

About Andrew Bucholtz

Andrew Bucholtz has been covering sports media for Awful Announcing since 2012. He is also a staff writer for The Comeback. His previous work includes time at Yahoo! Sports Canada and Black Press.