The Validity of Major College Athletics Questioned, Again, at Rutgers

[dlh_]

Rutgers is a great school, with a great tradition academically and, of course, for originating college football. But, it has not often been an athletic powerhouse. It joined the Big 10; but it's athletic department has a history of significant funding issues. Students subsidize athletics to the tune of $10 million.

A New York Times article today discusses their problems:

Yet even with the Big Ten’s money (and to be fair, as a new member, Rutgers won’t reap the full rewards for six years), the Rutgers athletic department is projecting deficits at least through the 2021-22. Indeed, according to figures compiled by a faculty committee, Rutgers athletics is projecting a total deficit of $183 million between now and 2022.

You can see, of course, why this would infuriate faculty members — or, for that matter, anyone who cares about academics. Like most state schools, Rutgers has seen its state financing shrink drastically over the last decade, while tuition and fees have been going up. Academic departments have had multiple rounds of belt-tightening. “At the school of arts and sciences,” said Mark Killingsworth, a Rutgers economics professor who has been a leading voice against the athletic department’s costs, “we have been told that we can hire one person for every two who leave.” The library, he noted, recently had its budget cut by more than $500,000. Meanwhile, Kyle Flood, the football coach, is getting a $200,000 raise next year, taking his salary to $1.25 million.

One report (USA Today) has IU athletics using an approximate $2.5 million subsidy. Of course, accounting matters, and questioning how building depreciation is put into the formula matters significantly. Purdue operates without subsidy. Rutgers is the leading deficit financed program in the country.

It is not surprising that economists, whose concern is resource allocation, lead in questioning big time college athletic funding. Mark Killingsworth is a famous labor economist. Rutgers alum Milton Friedman inveighed against excessive college athletics, stating:

Universities exist to transmit knowledge and understanding of ideas and values to students not to provide entertainment for spectators or employment for athletes.

As colleges become more expensive for students, should they be taxed for athletics? As football and basketball players are underpaid in college athletics, should coaches be receiving large rents for their services? Are we, generally and older generation and calling for more wins at the expense of a young student, the problem?

nmst

 

[SULaw1]

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

 

[dlh_]

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.