The signal to noise ratio in the public dialog about college sports business and administration is extremely high, so we always approach athletic decision makers with a framework of qualitative perspectives and empirical evidence for analysis in context to produce actionable alternatives. With budget planning underway, we offer a macro view about EADA-based spending in sports programs of similar sizes for those whom may elect to reference peers in fiscal considerations. We acknowledge the certain characteristics of EADA and quality of aggregations in EADA filings, which is why Win AD sources NCAA Financial Reports(and soon, we’ll add audited financial statements from applicable programs for more precise apples-to-apples benchmarking). Nevertheless, for purposes of the following review, we explore how spending in Football and Basketball compare to spending in other sports, measured across three strata using EADA data: I-A, I-AA and I-AAA.
Even though Football and Basketball are the most prominent sports on most campuses, the majority of colleges and universities manage an expansive program of sports in conference and NCAA play that need resources. Here’s a quick look at the revenues and expenses of those other sports.
In all NCAA divisions (1-A, 1-AA, and 1-AAA) Track & Field, Soccer, and Baseball are the next three biggest sports in terms of both expenditures and revenues, though in different orders. Women’s Volleyball is the 7th most expensive sport in all three divisions, while Tennis is the only other sport in the top ten of all three. Swimming & Diving and Golf make the cut in 1-A and 1-AAA, while Softball is 8th in 1-AA and 1-AAA. Lacrosse is the only other sport in the top 10 (1-AA). As far as revenue goes, in 1-AA and 1-AAA, the rank of sports by revenue is the same as the rank by expenditures, while in 1-A Swimming & Diving is 9th by revenue but 7th by expenditures.
Division 1-A, 2010 EADA Data ($ in Millions)
Looking specifically at division 1-A, we know that the vast majority of schools receive the bulk of their athletic funding from football, with the average school taking in nearly $10 million more than they spend; that money gets put directly back into other sports, with the non-football/non-basketball sports spending anywhere from 147% to 227% of their individual sports’ revenue using the football supplement.
Division 1-AA, 2010 EADA Data ($ in Millions)
Interestingly, both 1-AA and 1-AAA spend the same % of revenue on their non-football/non-basketball sports (between 101% and 107%), even though 1-AA has football programs while 1-AAA does not. Notably, 1-AA generates relatively little revenue from football (an average of $2.7 million per school, which is just over 12% of what 1-A schools make on average), and furthermore, all of their football revenue goes towards football expenses. Therefore, on the surface, the two divisions appear quite similar; however, a closer, per school examination, reveals a different story.
Division 1-AAA, 2010 EADA Data ($ in Millions)
Looking at the per school breakdown, it might raise eyebrows that 1-AAA spends more money on Men’s Basketball than 1-AA, $2.2 million to $1.5 million. But even more noteworthy is that on a per school basis, 1-AAA spends more money and generates more revenue than 1-AA in 5 of their 7 other top sports as well. On the whole, the average 1-AAA school spends nearly $1.5 million more on top sports than the average 1-AA school.
Division 1-AAA vs. 1-AA ($ in Millions)
Finally, let’s take a quick look at revenue and market share across the divisions to see if there are areas where a sport might be ripe for the picking.
Division 1-AAA, 2010 EADA Data ($ in Millions)
It appears that some 1-A schools need to beef up their soccer programs, while 1-AA programs could make up ground in Men’s Basketball.
Overall, while Football is the undisputed king on campus, and Men’s Basketball is consistently strong, there is still money to be made in other top sports, if you know where to look.
