Colleges spend far more on each athlete than on their students, according to a report released last month, in a trend one expert calls an “arms race” between schools and athletic conferences.
The report, released in June by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, aims to “bring back educational values and priorities” to college athletic conferences across the country. The report said expenditures on sports by the 10 biggest-spending schools were $98 million in 2009. By 2020, that amount is expected to exceed $250 million per year.
Knight Commission executive director Amy Perko said schools that are not as successful with creating outside revenue through their athletic departments rely more heavily on direct institutional funding for their student athletes.
On average, a university in the Big 12 spends $124,054 on a student athlete per year. $6,701 of that is part of funds allocated by the university from student fees, general funds, state appropriations and other sources within the school, according to the Knight Commission’s report.
The rest of the money for student athletes comes from revenue generated by the athletic department through areas such as ticket sales and television contracts.
Big 12 universities spent an average of $13,741 a year on academics per student. That includes paying for instruction, student services and operations. According to the report, universities in the Big 12 on average spent nine times more per student athlete than a student academically in 2008.
The amount of money allocated on average for a student athlete in the Big Ten increased from $13,964 in 2005 to $17,025 in 2008. Unlike the Big 12, the amount of money allocated on average per each student academically in the Big Ten dipped from $4,750 in 2005 to $3,236 in 2008.
The Knight Commission’s report spells out three main goals for college athletic programs, which are coming up with better ways to compare academic spending to athletic spending, doling out awards for where academics is put first and treating college athletes as students first.
University of Chicago sports economics professor Allen Sanderson called the spending “an arms race.” For example, if one university cut a portion of their program that other schools did not, that school would be put at a disadvantage. Therefore, Sanderson said, universities would be more inclined to cut spending in certain areas if they all agreed on it.
Although Sanderson acknowledges that universities are competing against each other with their athletic programs, he said information like the Knight Commission’s report should be put into context.
“The fact that you spend more in one area opposed to another in itself is not a guilty plea,” Sanderson said. “If you look at any kind of changes or expenditures I wouldn’t expect them to be the same anyway.”
But Sanderson said he feels more money should go to academic areas of colleges.
“A lot of the money that’s being stemmed for the athletic program is coming out of places that it could be used in the university,” he said. “College athletes are the most exploited workers in the country.”
The MU Athletics Department did not return requests for comment on the report.