[CTcard]

Amen, Bob. I remain confused as to why taking a slice of Athletic Department profits and funding a 401(k) for student-athletes isn't discussed more.

Do all Athletic Departments make profits? I was under the impression that a lot of them (maybe the majority) didn't.

Almost all athletic departments lose money, and are subsidized one way or another by general university funds, student fees, etc.
The basic data is published every year by the USA Today. 2017-18 AD Finances
The column titled "total allocated" is roughly the amount ADs are in the red, or really the amount in the red is (total expenses - total revenue) + amount allocated.
The part in parentheses is usually small as most athletic departments are supposed to show a balanced budget.

However, it is a lot more complicated than that. A lot of those expenses are paying brobdingnagian coaching salaries and myriads of Athletic Sub-directors. One argument is that money would be better spent split among athletes.

------------
While I am sympathetic to the idea in general, I rather hate that particular article.
The main reason expressed to support paying players is outrage over what coaches get paid. I really don't see a connecting logic there. There is, however, plenty of faux outrage and telling people with dissenting opinion that they are some combination of stupid, fooling themselves, and corrupt; all without any particular reasoning on why.

There are lots of serious issues with any answer on the question. This article certainly had no interest in addressing any of them.

[CTcard]

Amen, Bob. I remain confused as to why taking a slice of Athletic Department profits and funding a 401(k) for student-athletes isn't discussed more.

Do all Athletic Departments make profits? I was under the impression that a lot of them (maybe the majority) didn't.

Almost all athletic departments lose money, and are subsidized one way or another by general university funds, student fees, etc.
The basic data is published every year by the USA Today. 2017-18 AD Finances
The column titled "total allocated" is roughly the amount ADs are in the red, or really the amount in the red is (total expenses - total revenue) + amount allocated.
The part in parentheses is usually small as most athletic departments are supposed to show a balanced budget.

However, it is a lot more complicated than that. A lot of those expenses are paying brobdingnagian coaching salaries and myriads of Athletic Sub-directors. One argument is that money would be better spent split among athletes.

------------
While I am sympathetic to the idea in general, I rather hate that particular article.
The main reason expressed to support paying players is outrage over what coaches get paid. I really don't see a connecting logic there. There is, however, plenty of faux outrage and telling people with dissenting opinion that they are some combination of stupid, fooling themselves, and corrupt; all without any particular reasoning on why.

There are lots of serious issues with any answer on the question. This article certainly had no interest in addressing any of them.