Max looks into collegiate spending on student athletes versus regular students and why schools spend so much more on athletes.
It seems like there is always some sort of scandal going on with college athletes. There is much debate over whether they should be paid to play or if scholarships for their education are enough compensation. Allegations over whether athletes have been receiving improper benefits from boosters are another topic that is heavily discussed. In recent memory, football players like Reggie Bush, Terrell Pryor, Johnny Manziel and Todd Gurley have fallen under scrutiny for receiving improper benefits. However, what goes largely unnoticed is that universities provide more benefits for these athletes than any boosters do. According to the Knight Commission, universities spent an average of $92,000 per athlete in 2010. To put this in perspective, in the same year, universities spent around $14,000 on full-time equivalent (FTE) students who were not athletes.
{{tncms-asset app="editorial" id="783594e2-d411-11e4-a54a-6b27454ea2f8"}}
When hearing these facts, one might think it is only big name or big program schools that are valuing athletic programs more than their academics. There is some truth to this. Big name schools spend much more money on athletics than smaller schools (for example the Big 10 spends $135,874 per athlete, whereas the MAC spends only $58,118). In addition to this, while the Big 10 spends around $75,000 more per athlete, they spend only around $5,000 more per FTE student ($19,685 in the Big 10 vs. $14,867 in the MAC).
Looking at just the gross numbers, it is easy to claim that large schools are the root of the problem when it comes to spending on college athletics. However, when looking at an individual college’s spending, it becomes apparent that many small-program schools are part of the problem as well.
{{tncms-asset app="editorial" id="783594e2-d411-11e4-a54a-6b27454ea2f8"}}
Ohio University is one of these schools. In 2005, OU spent an average of $11,552 per FTE student. By 2013, that number had risen 23 percent, to $14,183. Comparatively, athletic spending over this time period increased 114 percent per athlete, from $29,853 in 2005 to $63,895 in 2013. This increase was by far the most severe in the MAC, with the University of Akron being the closest with a 73 percent increase. In other words, by 2013, Ohio University was spending 450 percent more on the average athlete than an FTE student on campus. In addition to this, its increase in athletic spending is nearly one-and-a-half times the next closest school in the conference (and nearly quadruples the school with the smallest increase, Eastern Michigan). And while the numbers for 2014 are not yet available, it’s hard to believe that the trend reversed itself.
The numbers lend themselves to the question: why? Why is Ohio University spending so much more money on its student athletes than on its regular students? After all, isn’t college about education? These numbers indicate what the university values more. Most universities’ justification for doing so is that their athletics are very profitable, sometimes making each university millions of dollars. In some cases, this argument is sustainable. According to USA Today, Ohio State generated $145,232,681 in revenue from its athletics in 2013. Its total athletic expenses were $113,937,001, meaning that it made a profit of $31,295,680. OU generated only $27,720,000 in athletic revenue in 2013. Comparatively, OU’s athletic expenses were $27,298,719, meaning its profit was only $421,281.
While athletics do technically profit the university, it is nothing compared to many other Division 1 programs. So, is it worth it to spend so much more on athletes, or is it time to level the playing field?
Max Pristic is a junior at Ohio University and a research assistant at the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. Columns will be written by a different CCAP student from Ohio University each week. Email Max at mp808711@ohio.edu.
