[BigJohn043]

I spent about 20 years closely following the athletics budget of a different university.  That university claimed that its losing football program was needed to generate revenues to support the other sports.  When we dug into the numbers, it turned out that their football program, year in and year out, lost money or barely broke even.  However, all the other sports were much bigger money losers, necessitating subsidy from the university's general funds.

We also looked into some comparable (public) universities to compare with the university we were studying.  Football was indeed, undeniably, the most important revenue source in ICA at each university, but this did not usually mean it was subsidizing the other sports.  The most typical situation was that football barely paid for itself--but at least it was not a drain on the university.  All the other sports had to be paid for via other means.

Complicating matters is fundraising.  The Advancement people at our subject university always claimed that most of the donors were football fanatics and would not give money to the university if football were dropped.   They claimed therefore that providing a football program was essential for raising money not just for football but for many other athletic and academic purposes.  We were never able to verify that.  I suspect that it is true for a small but dwindling number of donors who came of age in a different era, and will become less and less true over time.

Whether any of this is relevant to Stanford's situation is a guess.  I did learn, however, to be skeptical about the perennial argument that football subsidizes other sports.  At our subject university there was considerable manipulation of the data to make that appear true.  (For example, the salaries of Advancement officers who raised money for football being paid outside the ICA division, the maintenance and upkeep of football facilities being moved into physical plant and not counted under athletics, ICA pooling many expenses between the various sports even when football was the exclusive beneficiary of them, etc.)

The question of college athletic profitability is all around allocations.  The easiest example is media rights.  We get a big pot of money each year for the Stanford athletics media rights.  Much of that isn't for a specific sport.  So how do you allocate it?  By the hours of TV created?  But we all know from recent conference discussions that the vast majority of that money is generated by football.  You also have a bunch of administrators and other costs that need to be allocated.  Those with various axes to grind can make numbers say what they want.

The reality is that Power-5 football teams make a lot of money.  Outside the Power-5 they are closer to breakeven as stated above.  Quitting football or moving outside the Power-5 would blow a big hole in Stanford Athletics budget....

[BigJohn043]

I spent about 20 years closely following the athletics budget of a different university.  That university claimed that its losing football program was needed to generate revenues to support the other sports.  When we dug into the numbers, it turned out that their football program, year in and year out, lost money or barely broke even.  However, all the other sports were much bigger money losers, necessitating subsidy from the university's general funds.

We also looked into some comparable (public) universities to compare with the university we were studying.  Football was indeed, undeniably, the most important revenue source in ICA at each university, but this did not usually mean it was subsidizing the other sports.  The most typical situation was that football barely paid for itself--but at least it was not a drain on the university.  All the other sports had to be paid for via other means.

Complicating matters is fundraising.  The Advancement people at our subject university always claimed that most of the donors were football fanatics and would not give money to the university if football were dropped.   They claimed therefore that providing a football program was essential for raising money not just for football but for many other athletic and academic purposes.  We were never able to verify that.  I suspect that it is true for a small but dwindling number of donors who came of age in a different era, and will become less and less true over time.

Whether any of this is relevant to Stanford's situation is a guess.  I did learn, however, to be skeptical about the perennial argument that football subsidizes other sports.  At our subject university there was considerable manipulation of the data to make that appear true.  (For example, the salaries of Advancement officers who raised money for football being paid outside the ICA division, the maintenance and upkeep of football facilities being moved into physical plant and not counted under athletics, ICA pooling many expenses between the various sports even when football was the exclusive beneficiary of them, etc.)

The question of college athletic profitability is all around allocations.  The easiest example is media rights.  We get a big pot of money each year for the Stanford athletics media rights.  Much of that isn't for a specific sport.  So how do you allocate it?  By the hours of TV created?  But we all know from recent conference discussions that the vast majority of that money is generated by football.  You also have a bunch of administrators and other costs that need to be allocated.  Those with various axes to grind can make numbers say what they want.

The reality is that Power-5 football teams make a lot of money.  Outside the Power-5 they are closer to breakeven as stated above.  Quitting football or moving outside the Power-5 would blow a big hole in Stanford Athletics budget....