NCAA President Mark Emmert made several comments during a press conference Wednesday that stirred up controversy, headlined by his claim that being a university president is “the hardest job in America.”
Emmert also touched on the profitability of Olympic sports in college athletics. He said no Olympic sport any school is cash flow positive, adding that “the problem with commercialization is Olympic sports don’t fit into it.”
Emmert says there’s no Olympic sport at any university that is cash flow positive.
I would challenge that somewhat looking at a few SEC baseball programs…
— Bryan Fischer (@BryanDFischer) December 8, 2021
The statement caused a stir, with several media members suggesting that perhaps Emmert didn’t include widely profitable sports such as basketball and baseball when referring to Olympic sports.
I don’t know if Emmert was including baseball as an “Olympic sport,” but for a story I researched about five years ago, roughly half to one-third of SEC baseball programs are profitable. https://t.co/0z89A9UO3s
— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) December 8, 2021
Emmert also said that the NCAA has opened “a number” of investigations into schools for violating NIL rules, though didn’t elaborate with specifics.
He also said the organization “badly needs Congress to act” on a universal NIL policy, with the NCAA not having good data on the deals that are being signed around the country.
“The leadership in Congress very much would like to but they’re not very optimistic that it can be done,” he said.
So we’re concerned about the sports not being profitable to colleges as corporations, but not about actually paying the athletes? maybe the NCAA should stop thinking about its own pockets every once in a while.
Tell me penn state and Iowa aren’t profitable in wrestling. And probably other big ten schools too.
Ahhh yeah, the 5th grade isn’t that profitable either. Should we get rid of that too, Mark?
Basketball, both men’s and women’s at some schools.
Basketball isn’t considered an “Olympic sport” by the NCAA because the “pinnacle” achievement by athletes isn’t the Olympics; it’s NBA/WNBA.
Did they add the Alumnae donations?
It seems that Emmert doesn’t get out much.
Aside from the obvious fallacy of his statement, what about all the programs in which non-Olympic sports are not profitable? I mean, it’s not like a majority of football and basketball programs are making money for their schools. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there are a number of schools that lose more money to Football and Basketball then all the Olympic sports combined…https://www.wsj.com/articles/march-madness-is-a-moneymaker-most-schools-still-operate-in-red-11615545002#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20FBS%20schools'%20athletic,a%20surplus%20of%20%2443.7%20million.
I think the Knights report indicated that 65% of football programs lose money.
This is such a short-sighted way of thinking by Emmert. It would absolutely crush the endowments of these schools to even consider phasing out “Olympic sports”, let alone actually do it. The vast majority of athletic graduates are non-profit athletes, and we donate out of gratefulness for our opportunities. I’d love to see a statistic on the percentage of endowment funds that come from Olympic sport alum.