[82lsju]

• revenue $137m (includes $12.3m in University support for Varsity Sports)
  
• expenses $158m
  

https://gostanford.com/documents/2023/12..._Final.pdf

[82lsju]

• revenue $137m (includes $12.3m in University support for Varsity Sports)
  
• expenses $158m
  

https://gostanford.com/documents/2023/12..._Final.pdf

[OCcardinal]

• revenue $137m (includes $12.3m in University support for Varsity Sports)
  
• expenses $158m
  

https://gostanford.com/documents/2023/12..._Final.pdf

The operating deficit increased from $11.5M in 2021-22 to $21M in 2022-23.  Revenue was up by $2.8M but expenses increased by $9.5M more than that (pretty much across the board).  It's not a surprise.  Back when they were looking at cutting sports in 2020, they were forecasting a cumulative shortfall over the next 3 years of $70 million. Hopefully, we'll be well below that, but it's not great.  The report says they made up the deficit with "funding from the university" and a "withdrawal from the DAPER fund".  Hopefully they didn't tap into the DAPER fund too much. That would be a double burden if DAPER revenues decrease too.  And, of course, expenses will increase next season with additional travel and student support 

I don't know what the difference is between the $13.3M revenue line item that is listed as "University Support for Varsity Sports" and the unitemized "funding from the university" that helped make up the deficit.

[OCcardinal]

• revenue $137m (includes $12.3m in University support for Varsity Sports)
  
• expenses $158m
  

https://gostanford.com/documents/2023/12..._Final.pdf

The operating deficit increased from $11.5M in 2021-22 to $21M in 2022-23.  Revenue was up by $2.8M but expenses increased by $9.5M more than that (pretty much across the board).  It's not a surprise.  Back when they were looking at cutting sports in 2020, they were forecasting a cumulative shortfall over the next 3 years of $70 million. Hopefully, we'll be well below that, but it's not great.  The report says they made up the deficit with "funding from the university" and a "withdrawal from the DAPER fund".  Hopefully they didn't tap into the DAPER fund too much. That would be a double burden if DAPER revenues decrease too.  And, of course, expenses will increase next season with additional travel and student support 

I don't know what the difference is between the $13.3M revenue line item that is listed as "University Support for Varsity Sports" and the unitemized "funding from the university" that helped make up the deficit.

[BobK]

UCLA had a $28M loss $131M over the last 4 years
Details in the chronicle

[BobK]

UCLA had a $28M loss $131M over the last 4 years
Details in the chronicle

[2006alum]

Thanks for sharing. Does anyone know how the 11 sports that got cut and then reinstated factor into this? I guess I thought the $200m endowment that their boosters raised served to ensure the AD wouldn't operate at a loss because of them. Is that right? If so, does this mean the deficit is the result of the remaining sports?

[2006alum]

Thanks for sharing. Does anyone know how the 11 sports that got cut and then reinstated factor into this? I guess I thought the $200m endowment that their boosters raised served to ensure the AD wouldn't operate at a loss because of them. Is that right? If so, does this mean the deficit is the result of the remaining sports?

[82lsju]

Thanks for sharing. Does anyone know how the 11 sports that got cut and then reinstated factor into this? I guess I thought the $200m endowment that their boosters raised served to ensure the AD wouldn't operate at a loss because of them. Is that right? If so, does this mean the deficit is the result of the remaining sports?

others have posted that the AD endowment is $500m+ which implies a payout of $25m at 5%, given the payout was $44m in the best case that implies the endowment is ~$880m, but the wording about 

DAPER was able to bridge the deficit through funding from the university and a withdrawal from the DAPER Investment Fund. As displayed in the exhibit above

implies that the endowment is less than ~$880m

in the previous year's report

https://gostanford.com/documents/2022/11..._FINAL.pdf

the endowment payout was $38m and included a withdrawal from the DAPER investment fund

right now I can't find previous reports where there was no withdrawal from the Fund to SWAG its value.

[82lsju]

Thanks for sharing. Does anyone know how the 11 sports that got cut and then reinstated factor into this? I guess I thought the $200m endowment that their boosters raised served to ensure the AD wouldn't operate at a loss because of them. Is that right? If so, does this mean the deficit is the result of the remaining sports?

others have posted that the AD endowment is $500m+ which implies a payout of $25m at 5%, given the payout was $44m in the best case that implies the endowment is ~$880m, but the wording about 

DAPER was able to bridge the deficit through funding from the university and a withdrawal from the DAPER Investment Fund. As displayed in the exhibit above

implies that the endowment is less than ~$880m

in the previous year's report

https://gostanford.com/documents/2022/11..._FINAL.pdf

the endowment payout was $38m and included a withdrawal from the DAPER investment fund

right now I can't find previous reports where there was no withdrawal from the Fund to SWAG its value.

[Giants]

1704769464[/url]']
UCLA had a $28M loss $131M over the last 4 years
Details in the chronicle

All the more reason to join the B10 where the cash flows like the Danube….

[Giants]

1704769464[/url]']
UCLA had a $28M loss $131M over the last 4 years
Details in the chronicle

All the more reason to join the B10 where the cash flows like the Danube….

[SkiBum80]

I notice Scholarships in expenses of $31 mil.
Is any of this real cash expenditures outside the school? like, say, off-campus housing or meal plans?
Or some (or most?) of it moving it out of Stanford Athletics pocket and into Stanford Academics pocket?
(the pockets being simply on other sides of the same garment with Stanford printed prominently on the back)

[SkiBum80]

I notice Scholarships in expenses of $31 mil.
Is any of this real cash expenditures outside the school? like, say, off-campus housing or meal plans?
Or some (or most?) of it moving it out of Stanford Athletics pocket and into Stanford Academics pocket?
(the pockets being simply on other sides of the same garment with Stanford printed prominently on the back)

[Jamesy]

I notice Scholarships in expenses of $31 mil.
Is any of this real cash expenditures outside the school? like, say, off-campus housing or meal plans?
Or some (or most?) of it moving it out of Stanford Athletics pocket and into Stanford Academics pocket?
(the pockets being simply on other sides of the same garment with Stanford printed prominently on the back)

Doing some back of the envelope math, cost of attendance is $80k. $31 million would provide ~400 scholarships which might be about right?

[Jamesy]

I notice Scholarships in expenses of $31 mil.
Is any of this real cash expenditures outside the school? like, say, off-campus housing or meal plans?
Or some (or most?) of it moving it out of Stanford Athletics pocket and into Stanford Academics pocket?
(the pockets being simply on other sides of the same garment with Stanford printed prominently on the back)

Doing some back of the envelope math, cost of attendance is $80k. $31 million would provide ~400 scholarships which might be about right?

[BobK]

Most scholarships are partial. Maybe 30-50%. Did you account for that?
Hmm good Jamesy. I got it

[BobK]

Most scholarships are partial. Maybe 30-50%. Did you account for that?
Hmm good Jamesy. I got it

[Jamesy]

Most scholarships are partial.  Maybe 30-50%.  Did you account for that?

Was thinking that each team has a certain allotment so if a team has say 7.5 scholarships that are allocated to 10 athletes, it would still cost $80k * 7.5. Thus, 400 scholarship equivalents but more than 400 athletes may be receiving scholarship aid. All back of the envelope to answer SkiBum's question that the majority of the cost (tuition) is likely just accounting.

[Jamesy]

Most scholarships are partial.  Maybe 30-50%.  Did you account for that?

Was thinking that each team has a certain allotment so if a team has say 7.5 scholarships that are allocated to 10 athletes, it would still cost $80k * 7.5. Thus, 400 scholarship equivalents but more than 400 athletes may be receiving scholarship aid. All back of the envelope to answer SkiBum's question that the majority of the cost (tuition) is likely just accounting.

[82lsju]

and on page 9 they list the endowed jobs, most are coaches

ADMINISTRATION 
The Jaquish & Kenninger Director of Athletics 

CARDINAL STRONG 
The Anderson Brothers Directorship of Sport Psychology 
The Anonymous Directorship of Olympic Sports Nutrition 
The Don and Sally Clark Directorship of Leadership and Development 
The Kissick Family Directorship of Sports Performance 
The Marie and Alex Shipman Directorship of Sports Performance and Applied Sports Science 

WOMEN’S SPORTS 
The Setsuko Ishiyama Directorship of Women’s Basketball 
The Anonymous Assistant Women’s Basketball Coachship 
The Harry K. & Ida S. Berland Assistant Coachship for Women’s Basketball 
The Peiros Family Assistant Women’s Basketball Coachship
 
The Head Coachship for Beach Volleyball 

The Franklin P. Johnson Directorship of Track and Field 

The Kristina M. Johnson Assistant Field Hockey Coachship 
The Onnie Killefer Assistant Field Hockey Coachship 

The Margot and Mitch Milias Directorship of Women’s Golf 
The Fortinet Founders Assistant Women’s Golf Coachship 

The Rodgers Family Directorship of Women’s Gymnastics
 
The Paul A. Violich Women’s Lacrosse Head Coachship 
The Werdegar Family Women’s Lacrosse Assistant Coachship 

The Alben Family Associate Head Women’s Rowing Coachship 

The Malin Burnham Assistant Sailing Coachship 

The Knowles Family Directorship of Women’s Soccer 
The Catarina Macario Assistant Women’s Soccer Coachship 

The Jessica Mendoza Associate Head Softball Coachship 

The Paul A. Violich Directorship of Women’s Swimming 

The Peter and Helen Bing Directorship of Women’s Tennis 

The Montag Family Directorship of Women’s Volleyball 
The Kimberly and Beverly Oden Assistant Volleyball Coach
 
The Dunlevie Family Directorship of Women’s Water Polo

MEN’S SPORTS 
The Clarke and Elizabeth Nelson Directorship of Baseball 
The Kathy Wolff Assistant Baseball Coachship 

The Anne and Tony Joseph Directorship of Men’s Basketball 
The James C. Gaither Assistant Coachship of Men’s Basketball 
The Oscar da Silva Assistant Men’s Basketball Coachship 

The Franklin P. Johnson Directorship of Track and Field 

The Bradford M. Freeman Directorship of Football The Andrew Luck Directorship of Offense 
The Kevin M. Hogan Quarterbacks Coachship 
The Couch Family Defensive Backs Coachship 
The Krishnamurthi Wide Receivers Coachship 
The Willie Shaw Directorship of Defense 

The Knowles Family Directorship of Men’s Golf 
The Enlight Foundation Assistant Coachship for Men’s Golf 

The Farwell Family Directorship of Men’s Rowing 
The Alben Family Assistant Men’s Rowing Coachship 

The Malin Burnham Assistant Sailing Coachship 

The Knowles Family Directorship of Men’s Soccer 

The Goldman Family Directorship of Men’s Swimming 

The Taube Family Directorship of Men’s Tennis 
The Jim and Martha Poppy Associate Head Coachship of Men’s Tennis 

The Birkhofer Family Men’s Volleyball Head Coachship 
The Al Roderigues Associate Head Men’s Volleyball Coachship 
The Kawika and Erik Shoji Assistant Men’s Volleyball Coachship 

The Dunlevie Family Directorship of Men’s Water Polo 
The Penner Family Assistant Men’s Water Polo Coachship 

The Matt Gentry Head Wrestling Coachship 
The Anonymous Assistant Wrestling Coachship 
The Patricia Miranda Associate Head Wrestling Coachship

[82lsju]

and on page 9 they list the endowed jobs, most are coaches

ADMINISTRATION 
The Jaquish & Kenninger Director of Athletics 

CARDINAL STRONG 
The Anderson Brothers Directorship of Sport Psychology 
The Anonymous Directorship of Olympic Sports Nutrition 
The Don and Sally Clark Directorship of Leadership and Development 
The Kissick Family Directorship of Sports Performance 
The Marie and Alex Shipman Directorship of Sports Performance and Applied Sports Science 

WOMEN’S SPORTS 
The Setsuko Ishiyama Directorship of Women’s Basketball 
The Anonymous Assistant Women’s Basketball Coachship 
The Harry K. & Ida S. Berland Assistant Coachship for Women’s Basketball 
The Peiros Family Assistant Women’s Basketball Coachship
 
The Head Coachship for Beach Volleyball 

The Franklin P. Johnson Directorship of Track and Field 

The Kristina M. Johnson Assistant Field Hockey Coachship 
The Onnie Killefer Assistant Field Hockey Coachship 

The Margot and Mitch Milias Directorship of Women’s Golf 
The Fortinet Founders Assistant Women’s Golf Coachship 

The Rodgers Family Directorship of Women’s Gymnastics
 
The Paul A. Violich Women’s Lacrosse Head Coachship 
The Werdegar Family Women’s Lacrosse Assistant Coachship 

The Alben Family Associate Head Women’s Rowing Coachship 

The Malin Burnham Assistant Sailing Coachship 

The Knowles Family Directorship of Women’s Soccer 
The Catarina Macario Assistant Women’s Soccer Coachship 

The Jessica Mendoza Associate Head Softball Coachship 

The Paul A. Violich Directorship of Women’s Swimming 

The Peter and Helen Bing Directorship of Women’s Tennis 

The Montag Family Directorship of Women’s Volleyball 
The Kimberly and Beverly Oden Assistant Volleyball Coach
 
The Dunlevie Family Directorship of Women’s Water Polo

MEN’S SPORTS 
The Clarke and Elizabeth Nelson Directorship of Baseball 
The Kathy Wolff Assistant Baseball Coachship 

The Anne and Tony Joseph Directorship of Men’s Basketball 
The James C. Gaither Assistant Coachship of Men’s Basketball 
The Oscar da Silva Assistant Men’s Basketball Coachship 

The Franklin P. Johnson Directorship of Track and Field 

The Bradford M. Freeman Directorship of Football The Andrew Luck Directorship of Offense 
The Kevin M. Hogan Quarterbacks Coachship 
The Couch Family Defensive Backs Coachship 
The Krishnamurthi Wide Receivers Coachship 
The Willie Shaw Directorship of Defense 

The Knowles Family Directorship of Men’s Golf 
The Enlight Foundation Assistant Coachship for Men’s Golf 

The Farwell Family Directorship of Men’s Rowing 
The Alben Family Assistant Men’s Rowing Coachship 

The Malin Burnham Assistant Sailing Coachship 

The Knowles Family Directorship of Men’s Soccer 

The Goldman Family Directorship of Men’s Swimming 

The Taube Family Directorship of Men’s Tennis 
The Jim and Martha Poppy Associate Head Coachship of Men’s Tennis 

The Birkhofer Family Men’s Volleyball Head Coachship 
The Al Roderigues Associate Head Men’s Volleyball Coachship 
The Kawika and Erik Shoji Assistant Men’s Volleyball Coachship 

The Dunlevie Family Directorship of Men’s Water Polo 
The Penner Family Assistant Men’s Water Polo Coachship 

The Matt Gentry Head Wrestling Coachship 
The Anonymous Assistant Wrestling Coachship 
The Patricia Miranda Associate Head Wrestling Coachship

[BobK]

1704844735[/url]']

1704841595[/url]']
Most scholarships are partial.  Maybe 30-50%.  Did you account for that?

Was thinking that each team has a certain allotment so if a team has say 7.5 scholarships that are allocated to 10 athletes, it would still cost $80k * 7.5. Thus, 400 scholarship equivalents but more than 400 athletes may be receiving scholarship aid. All back of the envelope to answer SkiBum's question that the majority of the cost (tuition) is likely just accounting.

Thanks I got about the same

[BobK]

1704844735[/url]']

1704841595[/url]']
Most scholarships are partial.  Maybe 30-50%.  Did you account for that?

Was thinking that each team has a certain allotment so if a team has say 7.5 scholarships that are allocated to 10 athletes, it would still cost $80k * 7.5. Thus, 400 scholarship equivalents but more than 400 athletes may be receiving scholarship aid. All back of the envelope to answer SkiBum's question that the majority of the cost (tuition) is likely just accounting.

Thanks I got about the same

[Softball Fan]

Is Stanford locked into the ACC for the same duration as all the other conference teams?

[Softball Fan]

Is Stanford locked into the ACC for the same duration as all the other conference teams?

[OCcardinal]

Most scholarships are partial.  Maybe 30-50%.  Did you account for that?

Was thinking that each team has a certain allotment so if a team has say 7.5 scholarships that are allocated to 10 athletes, it would still cost $80k * 7.5. Thus, 400 scholarship equivalents but more than 400 athletes may be receiving scholarship aid. All back of the envelope to answer SkiBum's question that the majority of the cost (tuition) is likely just accounting.

Stanford's 2021-22 Equity in Athletics disclosure shows "athletically-related student aid" of $28,909,727, which is strangely lower than the 30.51 shown on Stanford athletics 2021-22 annual report.  (You can find Stanford's Equity in Athletics report here:  https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/search).  The report shows 832 unique participants in Stanford varsity sports for that year, so using the Equity in Athletics figure that is an average of $34,747.27 in sports-specific aid per participant. Of course Stanford's general financial aid is very generous so I presume many Stanford athletes also receive non-athletically-related aid.

As far as what might be included in that number, Equity in Athletics defines "athletically-related student aid" as "any scholarship, grant, or other form of financial assistance, offered by an institution, the terms of which require the recipient to participate in a program of intercollegiate athletics at the institution."  The instructions indicate that would include not only academic scholarships but also any housing or meal plans provided by the university.  Don't know what the Annual Report might add on top of that.

[OCcardinal]

Most scholarships are partial.  Maybe 30-50%.  Did you account for that?

Was thinking that each team has a certain allotment so if a team has say 7.5 scholarships that are allocated to 10 athletes, it would still cost $80k * 7.5. Thus, 400 scholarship equivalents but more than 400 athletes may be receiving scholarship aid. All back of the envelope to answer SkiBum's question that the majority of the cost (tuition) is likely just accounting.

Stanford's 2021-22 Equity in Athletics disclosure shows "athletically-related student aid" of $28,909,727, which is strangely lower than the 30.51 shown on Stanford athletics 2021-22 annual report.  (You can find Stanford's Equity in Athletics report here:  https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/search).  The report shows 832 unique participants in Stanford varsity sports for that year, so using the Equity in Athletics figure that is an average of $34,747.27 in sports-specific aid per participant. Of course Stanford's general financial aid is very generous so I presume many Stanford athletes also receive non-athletically-related aid.

As far as what might be included in that number, Equity in Athletics defines "athletically-related student aid" as "any scholarship, grant, or other form of financial assistance, offered by an institution, the terms of which require the recipient to participate in a program of intercollegiate athletics at the institution."  The instructions indicate that would include not only academic scholarships but also any housing or meal plans provided by the university.  Don't know what the Annual Report might add on top of that.

[SkiBum80]

Thanks OCcard & others for further insight.
Some further musings with a disclaimer that it's from someone not in the loop, but rather making conjectures based on limited info.
If you look at the report in simplest terms, OMG the athletics is hemorrhaging $21 mil cash! 
Like as in $21 mil actual dollars flowing out of the University through the Athletic department doorways.
But I'm not sure it's that simple.
If Athletics is paying $31 mil of scholarships, then sounds to me like Academics is charging Athletics that amount for the privilege of teaching (and housing and feeding) these Stanford athletes.
So that $31 mil is presumably not directly going out of Stanford directly, but rather to Academics, which then pools it into all its other students income and then sends it out to teachers, workers, etc.
So the $31 mil transfer makes Athletics looks worse financially and Academics better.
I then think about those Stanford athletes on scholarship, and how many, without the scholarship, would have come to Stanford in the first place, and if so, what tuition would they have paid to Academics (i.e. would some have gotten any need based or academic scholarship?) 
For those athletes that didn't come, then would they be directly substituted with the same number of non-athlete admissions?
Would those non-athlete admissions all be paying full tuition themselves, or some or many of them be getting partial or full need or academic scholarships?
And furthermore, in worst case, if all those athletes did not get scholarships, and presumably many or most ended up going elsewhere, then what is the prospect of Stanford athletics long term?
If Stanford athletics long term isn't good, what is the prospect of the Stanford "brand" long term, if not evolution from what it has been, top quality Academic + Athletic, to maybe simply top quality Academic?
Getting back to my initial point, I think the Athletics report of $21 mil deficit is of course not good, but it doesn't exactly correlate to the Athletic dept having blown away $21 mil of cash. A lot depends on how you view the implications and accuracy of the $31 mil charge to Athletics that I presume is credited to Academics.

[SkiBum80]

Thanks OCcard & others for further insight.
Some further musings with a disclaimer that it's from someone not in the loop, but rather making conjectures based on limited info.
If you look at the report in simplest terms, OMG the athletics is hemorrhaging $21 mil cash! 
Like as in $21 mil actual dollars flowing out of the University through the Athletic department doorways.
But I'm not sure it's that simple.
If Athletics is paying $31 mil of scholarships, then sounds to me like Academics is charging Athletics that amount for the privilege of teaching (and housing and feeding) these Stanford athletes.
So that $31 mil is presumably not directly going out of Stanford directly, but rather to Academics, which then pools it into all its other students income and then sends it out to teachers, workers, etc.
So the $31 mil transfer makes Athletics looks worse financially and Academics better.
I then think about those Stanford athletes on scholarship, and how many, without the scholarship, would have come to Stanford in the first place, and if so, what tuition would they have paid to Academics (i.e. would some have gotten any need based or academic scholarship?) 
For those athletes that didn't come, then would they be directly substituted with the same number of non-athlete admissions?
Would those non-athlete admissions all be paying full tuition themselves, or some or many of them be getting partial or full need or academic scholarships?
And furthermore, in worst case, if all those athletes did not get scholarships, and presumably many or most ended up going elsewhere, then what is the prospect of Stanford athletics long term?
If Stanford athletics long term isn't good, what is the prospect of the Stanford "brand" long term, if not evolution from what it has been, top quality Academic + Athletic, to maybe simply top quality Academic?
Getting back to my initial point, I think the Athletics report of $21 mil deficit is of course not good, but it doesn't exactly correlate to the Athletic dept having blown away $21 mil of cash. A lot depends on how you view the implications and accuracy of the $31 mil charge to Athletics that I presume is credited to Academics.

[82lsju]

Thanks OCcard & others for further insight.
Some further musings with a disclaimer that it's from someone not in the loop, but rather making conjectures based on limited info.
If you look at the report in simplest terms, OMG the athletics is hemorrhaging $21 mil cash! 
Like as in $21 mil actual dollars flowing out of the University through the Athletic department doorways.
But I'm not sure it's that simple.
If Athletics is paying $31 mil of scholarships, then sounds to me like Academics is charging Athletics that amount for the privilege of teaching (and housing and feeding) these Stanford athletes.
So that $31 mil is presumably not directly going out of Stanford directly, but rather to Academics, which then pools it into all its other students income and then sends it out to teachers, workers, etc.
So the $31 mil transfer makes Athletics looks worse financially and Academics better.
I then think about those Stanford athletes on scholarship, and how many, without the scholarship, would have come to Stanford in the first place, and if so, what tuition would they have paid to Academics (i.e. would some have gotten any need based or academic scholarship?) 
For those athletes that didn't come, then would they be directly substituted with the same number of non-athlete admissions?
Would those non-athlete admissions all be paying full tuition themselves, or some or many of them be getting partial or full need or academic scholarships?
And furthermore, in worst case, if all those athletes did not get scholarships, and presumably many or most ended up going elsewhere, then what is the prospect of Stanford athletics long term?
If Stanford athletics long term isn't good, what is the prospect of the Stanford "brand" long term, if not evolution from what it has been, top quality Academic + Athletic, to maybe simply top quality Academic?
Getting back to my initial point, I think the Athletics report of $21 mil deficit is of course not good, but it doesn't exactly correlate to the Athletic dept having blown away $21 mil of cash. A lot depends on how you view the implications and accuracy of the $31 mil charge to Athletics that I presume is credited to Academics.

well the AD has been paying "list price" for scholarships, so that's not new, of course the price goes up every year.  Until around five years ago the AD was overall breaking even while paying list price, but that's changed.

I think what you are talking about is should the AD have to pay "list price" or should the scholarships be valued at something else, maybe the average "net price" for non-athletes.  I would guess that the NCAA has some sort of rules on "list price" vs any other valuation but I don't know that is a fact.

The AD also has the "luxury" of a sizeable endowment (others have said $500m+) that most ADs do not.

In any case the overall AD financial performance is not going in the right direction and joining the ACC, while better than the alternatives, will likely not improve the financial performance given we reportedly are not getting TV money for some number of years...

[82lsju]

Thanks OCcard & others for further insight.
Some further musings with a disclaimer that it's from someone not in the loop, but rather making conjectures based on limited info.
If you look at the report in simplest terms, OMG the athletics is hemorrhaging $21 mil cash! 
Like as in $21 mil actual dollars flowing out of the University through the Athletic department doorways.
But I'm not sure it's that simple.
If Athletics is paying $31 mil of scholarships, then sounds to me like Academics is charging Athletics that amount for the privilege of teaching (and housing and feeding) these Stanford athletes.
So that $31 mil is presumably not directly going out of Stanford directly, but rather to Academics, which then pools it into all its other students income and then sends it out to teachers, workers, etc.
So the $31 mil transfer makes Athletics looks worse financially and Academics better.
I then think about those Stanford athletes on scholarship, and how many, without the scholarship, would have come to Stanford in the first place, and if so, what tuition would they have paid to Academics (i.e. would some have gotten any need based or academic scholarship?) 
For those athletes that didn't come, then would they be directly substituted with the same number of non-athlete admissions?
Would those non-athlete admissions all be paying full tuition themselves, or some or many of them be getting partial or full need or academic scholarships?
And furthermore, in worst case, if all those athletes did not get scholarships, and presumably many or most ended up going elsewhere, then what is the prospect of Stanford athletics long term?
If Stanford athletics long term isn't good, what is the prospect of the Stanford "brand" long term, if not evolution from what it has been, top quality Academic + Athletic, to maybe simply top quality Academic?
Getting back to my initial point, I think the Athletics report of $21 mil deficit is of course not good, but it doesn't exactly correlate to the Athletic dept having blown away $21 mil of cash. A lot depends on how you view the implications and accuracy of the $31 mil charge to Athletics that I presume is credited to Academics.

well the AD has been paying "list price" for scholarships, so that's not new, of course the price goes up every year.  Until around five years ago the AD was overall breaking even while paying list price, but that's changed.

I think what you are talking about is should the AD have to pay "list price" or should the scholarships be valued at something else, maybe the average "net price" for non-athletes.  I would guess that the NCAA has some sort of rules on "list price" vs any other valuation but I don't know that is a fact.

The AD also has the "luxury" of a sizeable endowment (others have said $500m+) that most ADs do not.

In any case the overall AD financial performance is not going in the right direction and joining the ACC, while better than the alternatives, will likely not improve the financial performance given we reportedly are not getting TV money for some number of years...

[Spiny_Norman]

The gap or structural imbalance is only going to get worse without significant actions. When Stanford announced its intention to join the ACC, Bernard Muir said that they expected fundraising to help cover for the 70% of the tier 1 media revenue that Stanford would be returning to the conference.

And yet in the AD's message in the intro to the annual report, Muir wrote, "Underlying the competitive success was a record year in fundraising.
More than 6,000 families supported Stanford student-athletes, helping to make fiscal year 2023 the most successful fundraising year in the history of Stanford Athletics."

So Stanford Athletics had its most successful fundraising year ever and still has a $20M gap on paper between revenue and expenses? And the gap is expected to get worse and the response of the AD is "more fundraising"?

I hope that Provost Martinez is pushing for a stronger plan of action. Or maybe she is ok with the status quo.

[Spiny_Norman]

The gap or structural imbalance is only going to get worse without significant actions. When Stanford announced its intention to join the ACC, Bernard Muir said that they expected fundraising to help cover for the 70% of the tier 1 media revenue that Stanford would be returning to the conference.

And yet in the AD's message in the intro to the annual report, Muir wrote, "Underlying the competitive success was a record year in fundraising.
More than 6,000 families supported Stanford student-athletes, helping to make fiscal year 2023 the most successful fundraising year in the history of Stanford Athletics."

So Stanford Athletics had its most successful fundraising year ever and still has a $20M gap on paper between revenue and expenses? And the gap is expected to get worse and the response of the AD is "more fundraising"?

I hope that Provost Martinez is pushing for a stronger plan of action. Or maybe she is ok with the status quo.

[chrisk]

Over the next 5 years, the university is clearly going to have to increase its subsidy of the AD.

The AD will have that time to increase fundraising and then the TV revenue haircut will start going away as well.

On the expense side, the AD will benefit by getting out from under Shaw's contract. Expenses can be controlled over time in other ways as they streamline scheduling. Multiple sports can share charters. Also, some Stanford teams can share charters with Cal teams from other sports.

[chrisk]

Over the next 5 years, the university is clearly going to have to increase its subsidy of the AD.

The AD will have that time to increase fundraising and then the TV revenue haircut will start going away as well.

On the expense side, the AD will benefit by getting out from under Shaw's contract. Expenses can be controlled over time in other ways as they streamline scheduling. Multiple sports can share charters. Also, some Stanford teams can share charters with Cal teams from other sports.