Highest Net Income: Big 12 Athletic Departments

Last Updated on March 25, 2012

This week, BusinessofCollegeSports.com is ranking the athletic departments with the highest net income.  First up was the ACC.  Next up is the Big 12.  Over the course of today and tomorrow, we’ll also look at the Big Ten, Big East, Pac-12 and SEC.  On Wednesday, the top-50 most athletic departments will be ranked.

The data was obtained from the Department of Education and is for 2010-11.  The data from the Department of Education is by no means perfect.  Throughout this series, net income was calculated by subtracting the “grand total expenses” from the “grand total revenues” that the athletic department reported to the Department of Education.  Expenses in this instance included:  head and assistant coach salaries, athletically related student aid, recruiting expenses, operating (game-day expenses) and “not allocated” expenses.  The expenses faced by athletic departments, however, may be greater than those reported in this snapshot provided by the Department of Education.  For example, an athletic department may have capital expenses outside of those expenses included in the report.  This all being said, this data is the only data publicly available for both public and private institutions.  Thus, it at least provides some insight into athletic department revenues, expenses, and net income before taking into consideration additional expenses, like capital projects.

SchoolTotal Athletic Department RevenueTotal Athletic Department ExpensesNet Income
Baylor59,859,235.0059,859,235.000.00
Iowa State48,574,989.0048,453,303.00121,686.00
Kansas70,028,683.0070,028,683.000.00
Kansas State68,875,266.0045,479,858.0023,395,408.00
Missouri59,005,954.0058,862,366.00143,588.00
Oklahoma104,338,843.0096,274,366.008,064,477.00
Oklahoma State70,123,206.0055,757,830.0014,365,376.00
Texas150,295,932.00125,978,117.0024,317,815.00
Texas A&M74,944,301.0071,719,872.003,224,429.00
Texas Tech51,190,970.0048,066,724.003,124,246.00

In 2010-11, only two Big 12 athletic departments did not turn a positive net income:  Baylor and Kansas.  Yet, neither Baylor nor Kansas churned the lowest amount of revenue in the Big 12 in 2010-11.  Rather, Iowa State was the athletic department which produced the lowest amount of revenue in 2010-11, at $48,574,989.00.

While six Big 12 athletic departments saw net income in excess of one million dollars (Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech), two departments’ net income stand out.  In particular, both Kansas State and Texas earned over twenty million dollars in net income in 2010-11.  Kansas State achieved net income of $23,395,408.00, while Texas had net income of $24,317,815.00.  Interestingly, though, is the fact that Kansas State’s revenues in that same year were $68,875,266.00, while Texas’ were $150,295,932.00.  Texas’ expenditures, on the other hand, were nearly three-times that of Kansas State’s.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

15 Comments
  • turfburner12
    March 19, 2012

    Wow, there were some big changes from one year to the next for some schools. These are the numbers Kristi published on Forbes for the 09-10 school year, I believe. I wonder what can cause such a disparity from year-to-year for some schools?
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/03/20/whos-making-money-in-big-12-football/3/

  • Jeff Roy
    March 19, 2012

    Texas doesn’t have a simple PDF like UVA, but a web page: http://www.utexasathleticsreport.com/revenue_expenses.html
    Contributions provide 25% of revenue, 41% comes from Ticket Sales (57.8% of which is from football, surprisingly low).

    How did Kansas State get to be such a cash cow? They have very low maintenance and depreciation costs, just over $2M. By comparison, 15% of total expenses or over $22M for same items at UT. If I knew more about what’s standard I would break it down further, but those expenses seem to stand out.

    Your blogs always get me thinking, AJ. Keep it up!

  • John
    March 28, 2012

    Why are we so proud of that number? It is important to run in the black, but it looks like we left $20M onthe table that was not reinvested in the program. UT and OU both out spend us at least 2:1