Numbers show revenue gap between FBS and FCS widening
By Ben KerchevalJun 16, 2011, 8:00 AM EST
5 Comments
3Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)3Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to email (Opens in new window)
That headline was courtesy of Captain Obvious. Just so you know.
Based on revenues and expenses submitted to the NCAA by individual programs, there is a (shocker alert) significant gap widening between self-sufficient athletic programs (i.e. Football Bowl Subdivision programs) and athletic programs forced to rely on school-supported subsidies (i.e. Football Championship Subdivision programs).
In fact, 22 FBS programs netted an average profit of roughly $7.4 million this past year (although the profits ranged anywhere between $211,000 to $41.9 million), roughly a one-third increase from 2009 where 14 programs netted a surplus. However, the NCAA believes that might have been a “recession-driven anomaly”; at least 18 FBS athletic programs saw a surplus since 2005.
If you’d like to read the NCAA’s full report, and in all likelihood, fall asleep doing so HERE.
And, to top it off, the NCAA was nice enough to provide some nifty graphics for your aesthetic pleasure. Here is a graph of total revenue of FBS and FCS schools over the past seven years and a graph of revenues and expenses for 2010.
The widening gap in revenue can be attributed to a few top-of-mind factors — larger television rights contracts, higher priced tickets (that, in basic economic terms, seem to resemble necessities more than luxury goods) and the increasing sales of complimentary goods (memorabilia, alcohol sales).
If nothing else, the numbers continue to point to the fact that revenue-producing college athletics are handled like a business.
And while business for FBS programs appears to be good, NCAA president Mark Emmert feels there is cause for concern.
That gap in revenue, either from self-generated or institutionally allocated sources, is significant,” Emmert said. “Indeed, it is coming to redefine what we mean by competitive equity. This will undoubtedly be a discussion point at the August presidential retreat.”
As you’ll recall, one of the talking points for that presidential retreat was as follows:
“Fortifying fiscal sustainability in the division. Division I, while not the NCAA’s largest division, is the only one that is subdivided (Football Bowl Subdivision, Football Championship Subdivision, and a subdivision that does not sponsor scholarship football). Research shows enormous disparities among those subdivisions in student-athlete academic performance, and in the range of revenue generation, spending and institutional subsidy, among others.”
The NCAA and a level playing field. Bonded for life.