A recent article in The Northeastern News (“Jackson’s Five,” April 23) promoted the building of a football stadium on Columbus Avenue as a way to finance the rest of Northeastern’s athletic programs. However, the claim that football programs at most schools make money is highly suspect but hard to disprove since the finances of sports programs are generally kept secret. In my 27 years at Northeastern, I have yet to see a published detailed accounting of how much money is spent on intercollegiate athletics. This secrecy leads one to suspect that past and present administrations avoid publicizing the millions of dollars spent on intercollegiate athletics over the years.
From what I have read in the media, it appears that most schools lose money on football and athletics in general. In 2001, the NCAA revealed that only 48 out of 976 athletically competing schools generated more income than they spent. The only schools that consistently turn a profit are those in winning programs, in major conferences with national fan bases that generate hefty television revenues and corporate donations. However, Michael Sokolove (NY Magazine) reported that the University of Michigan, in spite of averaging over 110,000 fans for home football games, lost about $7 million on athletics between 1998 and 2000. Ohio State athletic programs brought in $73 million in 1999-2000 and barely broke even according to Andrew Zimbalist, a Smith College economics professor.
How long would it take Northeastern, burdened with the cost of a new stadium, to break even on its investment, let alone support other programs? Chances would be very slim, not even guaranteed by the unlikely occurrence of a string of major bowl appearances. According to David Jones in a 2002 article in Florida Today, the total revenue from the 2003 Bowl Championship Series is projected to be $86.8 million with $81 million being distributed within the five participating mega-conferences. Only the remaining $5.8 million will be divided among other, lesser conferences. The rich are getting richer and the rest are losing money that would better be spent on academic programs, financial aid, and infrastructure improvements.
One does not have to look far for a good example of what Northeastern’s future could look like with a new stadium. A few years ago, Boston University eliminated its football program for financial reasons. The program had been losing at least a million dollars a year in spite of its long tradition in a respectable conference, its large stadium, the residential nature of its campus, and its prime location in Boston. How could Northeastern do better in a smaller stadium with limited parking, in a minor conference with no real potential for significant television and corporate money?
The impact on the neighborhood is also a very significant problem and should not be lightly brushed aside. In addition to the increased traffic and noise, a park much-used by local residents would be lost. How does this fit with Northeastern’s efforts at community outreach?
We should not accept at face-value vague claims by members of the athletic program and their supporters that a stadium on campus would generate future profits. At a time when the economy is faltering and academic programs are being severely pinched financially, it is discouraging to read that yet another pie-in-the-sky scheme for building a stadium on campus is under consideration. Before the university administration gets too serious about a new stadium, an independent external audit of the athletic program’s finances should be conducted and made public so a clear picture of its present fiscal health can be used as a basis for projecting future profits or losses. The university should also contract with an independent firm to conduct a thorough and realistic market study to establish whether or not a new stadium would generate real profits. Dollars invested in these studies would be well-worth it, possibly preventing tens of millions of dollars of future losses. To do otherwise would be folly and a great disservice to the university community and its neighbors.
– Martin E. Ross is an associate professor in the department of geology.
