College athletics has emerged as one of the most contentious—and costly—areas of campus finance. While a small number of marquee programs generate substantial revenue, most athletics departments operate at a deficit, relying heavily on institutional subsidies and student fees to stay afloat.
Data compiled in the Knight-Newhouse College Athletics Database shows that the financial model underpinning Division I athletics is increasingly dependent on sources that have little to do with ticket sales or media contracts. According to publicly reported figures, roughly 92% of NCAA Division I athletics programs rely on some combination of institutional support and student fees.
The Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics has long warned that this trajectory is unsustainable. In partnership with financial services firm CliftonLarsonAllen (CLA), the commission released a detailed analysis projecting finances for public colleges’ Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) programs through 2032. The findings suggest that without significant changes, athletics spending will continue to drift further from the educational missions universities claim to prioritize.
CLA projects that total annual athletics revenue for public FBS institutions will reach $20.9 billion by 2032—more than double 2022 levels. Of that total, $16.7 billion is expected to flow to public institutions in the Autonomy 5 conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC). Yet the influx of new revenue, largely driven by expanded College Football Playoff distributions and media rights deals, is not projected to relieve financial strain for most campuses. Instead, the report concludes that “business-as-usual athletics spending patterns” will intensify existing imbalances rather than correct them.
One of the report’s most striking findings centers on what the Knight Commission calls the “crossover point.” By 2032, nearly half of public Autonomy 5 institutions are projected to spend more on compensation for just 11 football coaches than on scholarships and medical expenses for all athletes across all sports. In aggregate, CLA estimates that football coaching compensation at those schools will total $1.36 billion—nearly matching the $1.37 billion projected for athlete scholarships and medical support combined.
These figures raise uncomfortable questions about institutional priorities, particularly at campuses where athletics budgets increasingly depend on student dollars.
In February, U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, called for a Government Accountability Office inquiry into how athletics spending affects students. “The data on spending on college athletics raises distinct questions about how schools fund their athletic programs and the extent to which Title IV student aid subsidizes these costs through students’ tuition and fees,” Walberg said.
Recent campus decisions suggest those concerns are not theoretical. The University of Minnesota approved a new $200 annual athletics fee for Twin Cities students, citing rising expenses following the NCAA’s landmark House settlement, which allows schools to directly compensate athletes. According to university estimates, the fee is expected to generate about $7 million annually, helping offset a projected $9 million shortfall in the athletics budget.
Similar dynamics are playing out elsewhere. South Carolina approved a new $300 annual athletics fee for undergraduates, while Iowa State University has forecast recurring budget gaps averaging nearly $25 million annually through 2031, even after halting capital projects and raising donor contribution requirements.
For institutions outside the top tier of revenue generators, the financial picture is even starker. According to NCAA data cited by lawmakers, no Division II athletics programs operate at a profit. Even within powerhouse conferences, deficits are common. Louisiana State University, often held up as a financial success story, reported a deficit in its most recent full budget cycle.
These pressures have revived a debate many campus leaders prefer to avoid—whether some athletics programs should be cut altogether. Former Ramapo College and Adelphi University president Robert A. Scott, PhD, whose institution eliminated football amid state funding reductions, has argued that such decisions can free resources for core academic needs.
“I was amazed at how much it cost not only in dollars, but in allocation of resources,” Scott said. “Few higher education institutions actually make money from football.”
The Knight Commission stops short of calling for widespread program cuts, instead urging governance reforms, spending controls, and stronger alignment between athletics finances and educational values. Still, its analysis underscores that new revenue alone will not resolve the structural imbalance.
As Pennsylvania State University President Emeritus Eric Barron wrote in 2023, “A cardinal rule of college budgeting is that it is much easier to revamp spending priorities with new revenue than to reallocate existing spending.”
For colleges already stretching student budgets to sustain unprofitable athletics programs, that window may be closing. Whether institutions respond by restructuring, cutting some sports, or continuing to pass costs along to students will shape not only the future of college sports, but the affordability and integrity of higher education itself.
