How Profitable was Football in Conference USA in 2009-2010?
By Kristi Dosh
[UPDATE: Comments from Tulsa’s AD Bubba Cunningham have been added as of 2:33 p.m, 4/26/11.]
After writing about the football finances of the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Pac-10, Big 12, and Big East, it’s time to turn to the non-AQ conferences. Since I have a loyal UCF following on Twitter, I promised to hit Conference USA first.
The numbers are drawn from schools’ reports to the U.S. Department of Education on the state of their athletic departments’ finances for July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010. See the note at the end for more details on the data.
Before we look at football revenue in Conference USA, let’s take another look at the averages for the six AQ conferences:
Football Revenue:
SEC ($49.9m)
Big Ten ($40.6m)
Big 12 ($35.4m)
Pac-10 ($24.6m)
ACC ($20.9m)
Big East ($18.8)
| Football Revenue | |
| University of Central Florida | $15,173,200.00 |
| SMU | $12,493,293.00 |
| Rice University | $12,355,180.00 |
| University of Memphis | $11,557,329.00 |
| East Carolina University | $9,627,578.00 |
| UTEP | $9,549,083.00 |
| University of Houston | $7,719,733.00 |
| Marshall University | $7,462,672.00 |
| Univ. of Alabama – B’ham | $6,811,742.00 |
| Tulane University | $6,686,956.00 |
| University of Tulsa | $6,340,835.00 |
| University of Southern Miss. | $5,605,441.00 |
| Football Expenses | |
| SMU | $12,493,293.00 |
| Rice University | $12,355,180.00 |
| University of Memphis | $11,557,329.00 |
| University of Tulsa | $9,420,693.00 |
| East Carolina University | $8,940,958.00 |
| University of Central Florida | $8,507,856.00 |
| University of Houston | $8,194,333.00 |
| UTEP | $7,586,702.00 |
| Marshall University | $7,462,672.00 |
| Tulane University | $6,686,956.00 |
| Univ. of Alabama – B’ham | $6,518,199.00 |
| University of Southern Miss. | $5,605,441.00 |
| Football Profit | |
| University of Central Florida | $6,665,344.00 |
| UTEP | $1,962,381.00 |
| East Carolina University | $686,620.00 |
| Univ. of Alabama – B’ham | $293,543.00 |
| Marshall University | $0.00 |
| University of Memphis | $0.00 |
| University of Southern Miss. | $0.00 |
| Rice University | $0.00 |
| SMU | $0.00 |
| Tulane University | $0.00 |
| University of Houston | -$474,600.00 |
| University of Tulsa | -$3,079,858.00 |
| Athletic Dept Profit | |
| East Carolina University | $1,566,072.00 |
| Univ. of Alabama – B’ham | $759,608.00 |
| UTEP | $79,696.00 |
| University of Central Florida | $61,915.00 |
| Marshall University | $0.00 |
| University of Memphis | $0.00 |
| University of Southern Miss. | $0.00 |
| University of Houston | $0.00 |
| Rice University | $0.00 |
| SMU | $0.00 |
| Tulane University | $0.00 |
| University of Tulsa | $0.00 |
NOTE: The data I have is from the U.S. Department of Education. Federal statute requires schools to report the financials for their athletic department (if they receive the Title IV funding, which all ACC schools do). The statute prescribes what should be included in each category on the report. For example, when we take a look at revenue the statute requires that it include gate receipts, broadcast revenues, appearance guarantees and options, concessions, and advertising. In terms of expenses, we’re looking at grants-in-aid, salaries, travel, equipment, and supplies.
It’s also important to note that this data is from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, so we’re talking about the 2009 football season. Additionally, while these are the most complete numbers available for all Big East schools (a public records request wouldn’t get you financial information for the private schools), there is room for variance.
An official within an SEC athletic department provided me with the following qualifications to the data: ”For instance, some institutions may report debt service associated with their football stadium as direct football expenses, while others may show debt service as Other, Non-sport specific. The same goes for game day security, parking, cleanup, etc. which some may show as direct football expenses, while others may show as facilities costs – not directly attributed to football. I do believe total revenue and expense numbers are comparable, but when you break down the numbers into categories there is a lot of leeway for variances between institutions.”
Another variance that came to light in reviewing the SEC and Big Ten financials is that some schools do not attribute any of their broadcasting revenue to specific sports, but instead only include it in the Other, Non-Sport Specific category. This means the athletic department profit number is probably the most reliable in terms of direct comparison.
Nonetheless, this is the most complete data available if you want to compare all of the schools (public and private). Also, while the numbers may not allow for a perfect apples to apples comparison, they do reflect what each school chooses to show the federal government for purposes of proving their compliance with Title IX. Certainly interesting to view the numbers in that light.
Thank you to my research assistant Ben Perreira for helping compile the data.
Robert
April 26, 2011Wow… Great stuff. I think that some of the numbers at UCF are pushed in one direction by the fact that they are paying off the bonds and loans for the new football stadium, new basketball arena, and the new indoor practice facility (only one in the Southeast).
The fact that we turn a good profit and only spend in the middle of the road in football, would bother me if we (1) didn’t have so much football success over the past 6 years and (2) if the program was lacking in any way, from a facilities standpoint, or if the student-athletes were left in need in terms of getting them ready for gameday or graduation. But we do a great job in getting the students ready for both.
Rodney
May 3, 2011What I take away from this is that ECU is freaking awesome!