Pikiell Knight Hungary
- Thread starter Tango Two
- Start date
Fat Koko -- for the Rutgers budget, I used the same source you identified above: https://finance.rutgers.edu/sites/d... Public Budget - Unit Financial Summaries.pdf
I looked at Rutgers New Brunswick Units (page 3 of the pdf), since we're talking about Rutgers New Brunswick Athletics, and budgets for Newark, Camden, or the Med School don't fund New Brunswick Athletics.
Based on that document, in FY23 total NB revenue was $1.751 B and State Appropriations were $0.224 B (12.8%). In FY22, those figures were $1.678 B and $0.203 B (12.1%).
As I indicated in my previous post, I am excluding restricted state funding like Fringe Benefits, because those funds cannot be used for discretionary spending like the recruiting trip that is the subject of this thread. Also, as I indicated in my previous post, when people complain about Athletics funding, I don't think they are objecting to a secretary receiving a state subsidy toward health insurance --- at least no more than they would complain about the same for a secretary in the student affairs office.
So that is how I determined that the State funds 12.8% of Rutgers NB's budget, and thus 12.8% of the direct institutional support given to the Athletic Department. (I actually should have used 12.1%, because I used a FY22 figure for Athletics.)
Page 5 of that pdf shows that the Rutgers Athletics Budget received $2.093 B in Allocated University Support in FY22 and FY23, and no State Appropriations (again ignoring fringe benefits).
But, I also looked at the FY22 NCAA Financial Report filed by Rutgers, which provides different breakouts (see https://rutgers.mycusthelp.com/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(fckltf2qv5ej0pweaiixped1))/BusinessDirectory.aspx ). This document shows Direct Institutional Support as $5,843,641.
I used the higher number from the NCAA Financial Report. Because the two financial reports provide different breakouts, there appears to be some general university funding for Athletics reported on other lines in the Budget pdf document referenced earlier.
12.8% of the $5.8MM is $748K.
As to your other question: I am looking at revenue, not expenses. The question asked is where does the money come from, and what part of that money is provided by NJ taxpayers. And that question is straight-forward. Of the money that Athletics receives, the only part potentially funded by taxpayers (excluding fringe benefits) is the $5.8MM that comes from Rutgers NB general university funds. And since 12.8% of Rutgers NB funds come from the state, it is fair to say that $748K of Rutgers Athletics funding comes from state taxpayers. For 9MM people in NJ, that is about 8 cents per person.
Upstream,
Thank you for connecting us to the financials of your calculations. Please do not ignore fringe benefits as these amounts are cash costs.
NCAA figures confirm Rutgers runs the highest deficit of the 96 universities that report sports finance numbers.
There is an assumption in some of the posts above that the University's subsidy to athletics comes partly from state aid to Rutgers. II don't think that's correct. The state's appropriation goes only to ay cost of instruction; it's a supplement to the tuition paid by students for instruction. There are no unrestricted appropriations from the state. The subsidy comes from Rutgers' nongovernmental resources. At most, one can argue that, without state aid, the subsidy that goes to athletics would go to academics and thus allow the state to appropriate less money for the cost of instruction -- a rather heroic set of assumptions.
Unless things have changed since I worked in university budgeting, state appropriations and tuition funds all went into one common pot called the state budget. That budget covered lots of things besides instruction- categories in the state budget were : instruction, research (not to be confused with externaly funded research), public service, plant, general administration, general institutional, student services, student aid. Any money that goes to athletics comes from that pot of commingled tuition and state appropriation.
That's very helpful. But it seems to me that none of those state categories include support for athletics. So whatever is going to athletics is coming from sources other than the state.
That is correct in part. Athletics is supposedly an auxiliary service like housing, dining, student centers, et Al. They are all supposed to be self supporting. None of those functions are part of the state budget categories that I listed.
However if the University chooses to subsidize athletics with money from the state budget, which is what it has done, then that subsidy is paid for by state appropriations and/tuition.
Perhaps we're talking past each other. When I look at the categories you mention, I don't see how the University could legally use money from the state budget -- as you say, none of the categories include athletics. I can't imagine that the University can use a category's money for anything but the category. Am I missing something? You obviously know more about the University's budget than I do.
Rutgers athletics is not self funding.
The state subsidizes Rutgers by tranferring money from a state bank account to a Rutgers bank account. Then Rutgers funds the athletics deficit.
Money is fungible. Useless to argue if Greg’s salary is paid by the state, the hot dogs sold at the stadium, or the student fees.
The key sentence in your post is that "money is fungible" -- and I'm not sure I agree with it. Let's suppose that the BOG was not subsidizing athletics. The key is what the BOG would be doing with the money instead. Would it be spending it on the sorts of things the State pays for, and would the State be decreasing its appropriation as a result? If neither is true, then the amount Rutgers spends on athletics has no effect on what the State gives Rutgers. It might be that the BOG would invest the subsidy money instead or that, if spent on the kinds of things the State helps pay for, the State would still support at the same level. In other words, money is not fungible IMHO.
But RU does spend the money on athletics Instead of doing anything else with it. Speculating how the money might otherwise be used is meaningless. They definitely can’t invest it, it must be spent. Usually any leftover money used to be moved into construction funds. Theoretically if there was left over state appropriations the state would get it back.
The whole state appropriation process is fairly complex, probably even more so since I retired before the med school got added back into RU.
To put it simply RU puts in a budget request for X$ to the state Office of Budget and Management. This will go thru the Trenton bureaucracy and eventually into the governors budget message giving the university something less than X$.
If the smaller $ amount is significant the U will then increase tuition to cover shortfall. State approp $ get sent to RU on quarterly basis. (Sometimes when state runs into mid year budget problems they may not fully fund the approp amount promised - very tough when you are told mid year you aren’t getting the $ promised)
But don't forget . . . Rutgers has private money in its endowment. Rutgers can and does invest that money. It must be using the interest from that money (plus student fees -- as opposed to tuition) for the subsidy because none of those state appropriation categories you mentioned include sports.
Yes RU has endowment money, some is restricted by donor - can only be used for a stated purpose like scholarship to left handed Lithuanians for example. Money I have donated to Dean of Management Unresticted fund for a serious example can only be used by the Dean of the Business sSchool at his/her discretion. I could also donate to Business School but put a restriction on it so Dean could only use for specific purpose.. Money I donate to athletics can only be used for sport I designate. Money I give for women’s crew can’t be used for football. There are endowment funds, often scholarships, specifically for football.
Same for student fees - a portion of the student fee is earmarked for athletics, but student fees for other purposes such as student centers or student health can not be used for other purposes.
However none of the above changes the fact that the university does transfer money from the state budget to subsidize football.
Same for student fees - a portion of the student fee is earmarked for athletics, but student fees for other purposes such as student centers or student health can not be used for other purposes.
However none of the above changes the fact that the university does transfer money from the state budget to subsidize football.
Your last sentence intrigues me. How can the university transfer money from the state budget to subsidize football when there is no category in the state appropriation for athletics? The state money, in other words, is just like a restricted endowment -- it can only be used for the purposes set forth in the category.
The categories are created by the university, not the state. The state gives us a lump sum and except for a few specific earmark items in the appropriation it is up to the university to determine how the funds are divided by category. The university also decided how to divide the money within its various units. Once budgeted individual university units can’t move money between categories without permission from central administration- for example if the College of Nursing is budgeted $ for instruction and another amount for research they can’t move money between instruction and research
Also as I mentioned briefly at year end the university did and I assume still does transfer funds into another category- construction funds to specially pay for multi year construction and renovation projects.
Also as I mentioned briefly at year end the university did and I assume still does transfer funds into another category- construction funds to specially pay for multi year construction and renovation projects.
Oh, I didn't know the state gives us a lump sum. I shouldn't be surprised because California does it the same way -- it hands money to the Regents of the University of California and lets them worry about how to allocate that.
There are , or at least were (been 30 years since I retired and got out of budgeting) a few other restrictions. The state limited the number of salaried employees the university could have and the budget process accounted for the fact that not all positions would be filled 100% of the time. If the u told the state that our total salary cost would be $100, the state would assume some % would not be used due to employee turnover and only include $95 in their allocation. If there was more turnover - yippee the u had more to spend on no salary stuff. One way to deal with mid year budget cuts was to freeze hiring to increase salary savings.
Anyway, university budgeting is incredibly complex. So I won’t continue to bore everyone with mote details.
Bottom line there is a pot of money that included state funds that has been used to subsidize athletics
Just a general question
It always seems that our RU athletic budget is in the red way worse than most schools, and this becomes headlines in the papers
Are we substantially worse with the monies, or are we just being more honest with accounting, and not really much different than others, who cover it with creative accounting
Sorry if this was in an answer above, did not read everything
Rutgers athletics operating profit (deficit) ranked 96 out of the 96 division 1 public universities that reported 2021-2022 fiscal year figures to the NCAA.
UCLA ranked 95.
In 2021, the NCAA put into place "agreed upon procedures" for athletic department financial reporting to ensure the universities report figures consistently using a third party accountant and following AICPA and non-profit accounting standards.
Thanks for the information about the requirements for calculating profit or loss. UCLA's rank is, not surprisingly, the prime reason it jumped the Pac-12 for the Big Ten.
This is my big problem with the AD.
I don't care about how much money they receive from the state, the taxpayers, student fees.
I'm much more concerned with how we're spending it.
Especially considering we are unlikely to ever be towards the top of the conference in $$.
We need to be extra efficient because we can't just spend our way out of problems (see Nebraska not waiting to fire HC Frost and it costing an extra $15m). We have to sit with our problems longer because of money constraints.
People mock NJ.com for reporting about the $75k in UberEats but that stuff does matter. Every dollar counts.
AD needs to hyper focused on optimizing the money we have to compete and succeed.
Why is the basketball team traveling to Senegal and Portugal? A ticket from JFK to Dakar runs $1,500.
Put the boys on a bus, drive to Toronto, and play the three teams in Canada’s pro league based in the Toronto area. The league’s season is in the summer.
Would be 1/10 the cost of this summer’s boondoggle.
Similar threads
