I think profit is a misleading term because of how much other on-campus programs depend on revenue generated by football, not to mention debt services.
I don’t think it’s terribly misleading because I doubt anyone misunderstands what the article means. Certainly that doesn’t mean “profit” for the entire athletic dept. It simply means the difference in revenue & costs of the football program. (Debt service might or might not be included in the costs, but I bet it is.)
Football is very profitable for the UA. Basketball is too. Don’t know if baseball has climbed into the plus side between revenue & cost, but it’s getting close. We know all those other sports are revenue drains. Important to have them, but they don’t come close to breaking even from a strictly financial standpoint.
Interesting Texas A&M makes more in profit than Arkansas generates revenue.
The point I was trying to make is that while the football “profit” might not actually be used on football-related expenses, it is earmarked for other projects.
Texas A&M’s figures are skewed because of the massive fundraising campaign to renovate Kyle Field. That was a $484 million project. Arkansas’ is, too, because of the campaign for stadium renovation funds.
Yes. I knew what you meant. I just figured everyone already knew it, too, and that the term “profit” only meant the difference between revenue & expenses.