As college sports ushers in a new year, it also enters a pivotal moment. Between the College Football Playoffs, bowl games and the rapid approach of March Madness, this is among the most lucrative stretches on the NCAA calendar. With the recent House settlement paving the way for schools to directly compensate student athletes, as well as requiring billions of dollars in retroactive back pay, the economic model of college sports has fundamentally changed. Now more than ever before, money sits squarely at the center of the college athletics conversation.
Like all things in sports, this shift will have winners and losers. One of those losers across the country has been lower revenue sports — from tennis to swimming to softball, less financially successful sports programs have been cut across the country. For the University, one of those losers was the men’s and women’s diving program — a venerable program that won five consecutive NCAA championships in the past five years — that was eliminated partly due to financial pressure. The closure of the University’s diving program stands as a stark warning for other, less profitable, University sports — they are not immune from closure either. The University’s leadership must ensure that this new economic reality in college athletics does not erode the mission for athletics programs — “to enhance and support the intellectual purpose of the University and its exemplary academic standards and traditions.”
A closer look at the University’s financial makeup helps explain the choices that now shape the athletic department's future. The University’s 2024 audited financial statements show that athletics generated $153.5 million in revenue while incurring $145.6 million in expenses, resulting in a $7.9 million surplus. That is nearly three times the median surplus of public ACC schools, according to the Knight-Newhouse College Athletics Database. Football and men’s basketball alone produced a combined surplus of $26 million, while women’s basketball, baseball, track and other Olympic sports generated a combined $24.2 million deficit, with the remaining balance absorbed through general program support. The financial structure is thus unmistakable — profits from football and men’s basketball subsidize nearly every other sport on Grounds. This budget strategy, often referred to in the college athletics industry as "revenue sharing," reveals a growing tension between financial efficiency and the University’s stated mission. By cutting programs such as diving, it appears that monetary interests are being prioritized over intellectual opportunities that athletics can enable.
Beyond furthering the University mission, athletic programs help student athletes to develop traits of leadership, excellence and sportsmanship, as well as the opportunity for personal growth. These qualities are not merely byproducts of participation in sports, but rather, they are directly cultivated through the discipline, grit, teamwork and accountability it takes to compete at the D-I level. These traits are ones that will persist far beyond student athletes’ endeavors and into their academic and professional lives. Therefore, cutting athletic programs is not simply taking away a student’s hobbies, but it is also eliminating a pathway for crucial development and formative experiences that work to shape the lives of many members of our community.
Moreover, the athletes who rise to the University’s elite programs have trained nearly their entire lives, molded their college experience around their sport and committed themselves to excellence. They deserve a platform that the University could offer them to pursue their training and competition. Cutting these programs now — in the name of financial efficiency — is the betrayal of the covenant that athletics programs make with students who expend time and effort into uplifting the University’s athletic teams.
Further, when the business side of the University’s sports outweigh these core ideals, we risk condensing a nuanced aspect of University life into something that is entirely monetarily driven. The University invests money into its diverse academic programs, clubs, facilities, labs and much more. These investments are not and should not be centralized around a return on investment mindset in which students are treated as customers. Instead, these investments are tools that ensure every stakeholder in the community has the opportunity to shape their own identity on Grounds. And for many, not just the athletes, but also the staff, the sports media clubs and even stats majors, athletic programs are a core part of that identity.
One potential safeguard against the corporatization of the University’s sports programs would be for the University to establish a protected baseline budget for Olympic sports, ensuring that continued investment in football and basketball does not encroach on funding necessary to sustain other programs. A similar concept has been advanced by leaders within the U.S. Olympic movement, who have proposed requiring schools to maintain their current proportional spending on Olympic sports. Establishing a clear spending floor would provide meaningful protection for Olympic programs and reduce the likelihood that future budget decisions disproportionately target them.
While adding monetary components to college sports is necessary, without guardrails, we risk transforming our athletic programs into commercial sports franchises that value profit over purpose. The collective body of athletic programs, not just football and basketball, should continue to be recognized as an essential part of the University’s culture, identity and community on Grounds.
Mason Segarnick is an opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Elect UJC representatives passionate about organizational independence
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAt a time when UJC continues to see an influx of complicated and severe cases, each of the four candidates expressed their eagerness to reform the body’s internal processes to meet its demanding burden.
EDITORIAL: Elect Student Council representatives who safeguard self-governance
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAs the University transitions to a new president after a year of stakeholder disempowerment, we are confident both candidates possess the experience, judgement and institutional awareness to advocate for students and hold leadership accountable
EDITORIAL: Vote for Honor representatives who rebuild community trust
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoWe are confident in these three candidates’ ability to creatively expand the reach of Honor, restoring genuine buy-in to Honor by grounding it as a universal value, rather than a distant ideal.
