The UCLA Faculty Association blog informs us that:
UCLA had 702 student athletes and USC had 576 in their athletic programs last year drawing an average of $181,395 and $206,054 of revenue to the schools, respectively. UCLA had a grand total of $127.3 million in athletic program revenue while USC drew $118.7 million, both ahead of the average for the Pac-12 conference, which was $106.4 million.
The biggest money maker at both Los Angeles schools was, of course, men's football, with the UCLA Bruins bringing in $41.3 million and the USC Trojans collecting $50 million. Next up was men's basketball, raising $12 million at UCLA and $6.3 million at USC. Basketball was the top-grossing sport for women at both colleges, bringing in $1 million at UCLA and $2.8 million at USC.
Should we care? First, it seems to me that the pertinent question is how much "profit" UCLA and USC will forego. My guess is that universities may end up saving money. Here's why:
- Most university sports programs even in the major revenue sports lose money. Coaches make millions, of course. and student athletes get the benefit of palatial dorms and athletic facilities, but even "revenue" sports at all but the top conferences often require subsidies from the general university budget or student "activities fees."
- At the top tier of schools where revenue sports are "profitable," universities have for years avoided unrelated business income taxation despite the fact that sports is clearly unrelated business.
- Any profits generated by top tier revenue sport programs do not go back to the university to subsidize academic programs. Instead, they are used to subsidize non-revenue sports.
The bottom line is that university athletics at best generate non-monetary benefits (name recognition, etc.) but at huge cost in terms of both monetary expenses and rampant corruption.
