[CTcard]

The end of squash and water polo is a good thing, actually, per this article (might be behind a paywall):

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...mp/683764/

BC

Since this is behind a paywall, I can only read the first two paragraphs. Already in the first paragraph I note it spouts common knowledge that is roughly correct but misleading. 

"A few sports at a few U.S. universities generate billions of dollars in total. The rest hemorrhage money." 
The statement is nominally true, as would be the statement that "Sports in the U.S. generate billions of dollars", but that isn't relevant to most universities. 
And with a generic "few sports" at "few universities" one can adjust the word few to make it all technically correct. 

However ... 
Football produces large revenues in total and requires large expenses everywhere. 
Basketball produces signficant revenues in total and requires large expenses. 
While it is impossible to exactly designate TV revenue to a particular sport, and AD budget statements are extremely suspect, serious estimates I have seen are that 20-30 football programs on their own at least break even* and possibly a few basketball programs. 
[* including designated donations]

Most football programs cost universities money, and most of those cost a lot of money. 
While essentially all niche sports cost money, most of those costs are small in comparison. 

The real subsidizers of most athletic programs are tuition dollars, mandatory student fees, and state appropriations for the general funds of unversities. 
By itself that isn't a problem. Lots of things universities do that aren't exactly providing education have a net cost - security, student health services, grounds upkeep, etc. 
The issue is the scale of the subsidy and how critical these items are to an institution's mission.  


The second paragraph has its own issues, but that's more than enough for now.

[CTcard]

The end of squash and water polo is a good thing, actually, per this article (might be behind a paywall):

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...mp/683764/

BC

Since this is behind a paywall, I can only read the first two paragraphs. Already in the first paragraph I note it spouts common knowledge that is roughly correct but misleading. 

"A few sports at a few U.S. universities generate billions of dollars in total. The rest hemorrhage money." 
The statement is nominally true, as would be the statement that "Sports in the U.S. generate billions of dollars", but that isn't relevant to most universities. 
And with a generic "few sports" at "few universities" one can adjust the word few to make it all technically correct. 

However ... 
Football produces large revenues in total and requires large expenses everywhere. 
Basketball produces signficant revenues in total and requires large expenses. 
While it is impossible to exactly designate TV revenue to a particular sport, and AD budget statements are extremely suspect, serious estimates I have seen are that 20-30 football programs on their own at least break even* and possibly a few basketball programs. 
[* including designated donations]

Most football programs cost universities money, and most of those cost a lot of money. 
While essentially all niche sports cost money, most of those costs are small in comparison. 

The real subsidizers of most athletic programs are tuition dollars, mandatory student fees, and state appropriations for the general funds of unversities. 
By itself that isn't a problem. Lots of things universities do that aren't exactly providing education have a net cost - security, student health services, grounds upkeep, etc. 
The issue is the scale of the subsidy and how critical these items are to an institution's mission.  


The second paragraph has its own issues, but that's more than enough for now.