As the Lobos take the field, which colleges “win” the subsidy war?

College athletics are indirectly (and sometimes directly) subsidized by the taxpayers. The USA Today recently put together a very interesting report showing which public universities’ athletic departments are the most heavily-subsidized and which pay their own freight. Hint, big schools with very successful college football teams tend to have athletic programs that pay for themselves while it appears that college basketball powerhouses with mediocre or bad football programs are able to make up a little bit of football-driven losses, but not all. Most schools subsidize their athletic programs to the tune of millions of dollars annually which ultimately, must increase student fees and/or taxpayer outlays.

According to the report, UNM received a total subsidy of $16,605,866 from 2006-2011 which comes to a total subsidy rate of 41.2%.

NMSU performed slightly worse with its athletic program receiving a total subsidy of $18,811,475 at a rate of 69.7%. Both subsidy rates were in the middle of the pack nationwide with rates ranging from zero to 90 percent.

HT: Patrick Leonard

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Replies to “As the Lobos take the field, which colleges “win” the subsidy war?”

  1. Considering that the conference that the Aggies play in (the WAC) is dropping football, it is an apropos time for the Aggies to drop their miserable and money losing football program.

  2. MIT and the University of Chicago, among many schools, do not participate in Major League (Division I) college “sports.” Another approach is playing at a lower level, say, Division II or even III.

    As NM has below average universities, at least academically, perhaps it is time to spend the “sports” subsidies on education.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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