Most Division I colleges with football programs operated at a loss during the 2023–24 season. This finding is based on an analysis of publicly reported NCAA athletics finance data. This result reflects not financial mismanagement. Instead, it is a strategic choice by many institutions. They treat football as a long-term institutional investment rather than a self-sustaining business.
Among schools with publicly available financial disclosures, more than one hundred reported football deficits exceeding $1 million. In the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), the NCAA’s highest‑resource tier, only 24 programs finished the year with revenues exceeding expenses. This left roughly 109 schools in the red. Financial shortfalls were even more common at the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) level. Smaller stadiums constrain revenue potential. Limited media exposure and modest ticket sales also contribute to the financial challenges.
Despite those losses, colleges continue to sponsor football because the sport serves functions that extend beyond the athletics ledger. University leaders often describe football as a visibility engine. It elevates institutional profile and strengthens alum engagement. Football supports student recruitment in ways that are difficult to quantify. However, it is central to broader enrollment and fundraising strategies.
At many campuses, football operates as the most public expression of institutional identity. Game broadcasts, rivalry matchups, and conference affiliations promote schools to regional audiences. They also reach national audiences that academic marketing alone may not cover. Administrators argue that this exposure can translate into increased applications. It can also lead to stronger alum loyalty and donor interest. These benefits enhance the university as a whole, even if football itself does not generate a surplus.
Financial data underscore the growing divide between the sport’s highest‑earning programs and the rest of the field. Power‑conference schools continue to benefit from lucrative media contracts and sponsorships. In contrast, mid-major and regional institutions rely heavily on institutional support. They also depend on student fees to cover rising costs. Coaching salaries have increased steadily. Facility maintenance and travel expenses have risen as well. Athlete support services have also gone up. These increases are widening the gap between revenue and spending for most programs.
In this context, deficits are often treated as a known and accepted cost of participation. Football expenditures are justified as part of a broader investment in campus culture. They are also justified for institutional competitiveness. This justification is similar to spending on residence halls, student life programming, or campus facilities. For schools already committed to Division I athletics, exiting football can carry reputational, conference, and financial consequences. Administrators view these consequences as more disruptive than continued subsidies.
The persistence of football deficits highlights a central tension in college athletics. Football is the most visible and culturally influential sport on campus. However, its financial model works sustainably for only a small subset of programs. For the majority of Division I schools, the value proposition does not focus on annual profitability. Instead, it is about the perceived institutional returns that extend beyond the balance sheet.
Modern Media Barn 