I read this article yesterday...but the numbers are still staggering. I believe the loss of Under Armour contract and funds from that are also factored into the Athletic Dept losses.
I assume that’s true and is to be factored in; however; Dan Guerrero was kept in his job because he was a “great fiscal manager,”however; I think it was maybe two or three years before he left where I began reading information that UCLA was down the hole. I guess we can attribute this year to that, but previously there had been some red too. I wonder what those are attributed.
In general- sports aren’t for the most part profitable enterprises. There was an article written a couple of years back regarding the profitability of La Liga (the Spanish Professional Soccer league) and out of the 20 teams only 3 are profitable, but none are serious about winning trophies. They just cash in on any assets they have and turn it into profit, whether that is a player contract being sold for big gains to bigger clubs, or having marketing campaigns (Middle East or China) where they can get twice the money in marketing contracts compared to what they would generate locally or in Europe.
All of this doesn’t surprise me at all, and my questions would be: 1. When was the last time UCLA Athletic Department profitable? 2. What was happening at that point on the field and on the court? (Considering that men’s football & basketball are the only two really profitable “sports products” a university really has) 3. How do Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Cincinnati Athletic Department fare off compared to UCLA’s considering that these 4 programs have done a great job this season in football (which is the biggest revenue setter for a university) in terms of their finances?
To cut it short, I play on a highly competitive amateur soccer league, the coach and a few other people (none players) pay for the team’s season registration which is about 500$ and the weekly cost of 120$ to “pay the ref.” There’s are 12 to 14 teams in the league on average every season. Each team plays twice, plus if you make it to the playoffs then add another 4 games more. The 1st place winner of the league gets 5K in prize money, 2nd place 3K. In essence, only those two teams can be “profitable” the rest are always going to be in the red.
I don’t know the intricacies of how a collegiate athletic department work, but from what little knowledge I have, it is obvious that there are serious issues in what’s being invested and what’s being returned on investment.
This is not a very well reasoned comment. Comparing major college athletics to "La Liga" is high farce. First, professional sports teams, even those in third world countries, are assets. They can be sold. And valued. College teams cannot be sold and there would be no basis for a valuation analysis. A quick Google search reveals that the most valuable Mexican soccer club is only worth $77 million (UCLA athletics generates annual revenue exceeding that number). That is an extraordinarily low valuation for a professional sports team in any country. By contrast, the LA Galaxy, which has virtually no fan base and is in a league that even die hard soccer fans do not care about, is worth nearly $1 billion. Hell, MLS literally has a team called "Minnesota United FC" worth half a bil.
Second, your comment "sports aren’t for the most part profitable enterprises" is inapplicable, particularly when you try to compare a multi-billion dollar industry to men's league soccer. All 30 NBA teams are profitable. All 30 MLB teams are profitable. Before covid, all 30 NHL teams were profitable. All 32 NFL teams are profitable.
But the real reason this makes no sense is because major college athletics obviously should be profitable. They have major tv deals. Major ticket revenue. Major donations from billionaire alumni. And major endorsements. One of the flagship schools in a Power 5 conference should be no exception. UCLA athletics' budget deficit should not be surprising, it should be shocking. It has only been running a budget deficit in 2019. 2019 WAS THE FIRST TIME IN 15 YEARS THAT HAPPENED. Arizona ran a huge surplus, why can't UCLA?
I'd love for our AD to answer the following question, not that the vast majority of this is his fault: Without using the phrase "covid" (because it did not exist in 2019), where has the money been going AND WHY? Now would be a great time to stop shutting down basketball ticket revenue because a few players had flu symptoms. It's mismanagement like this that results in schools shutting down certain non-revenue sports that really don't put a dent in the budget anyway.
As long as Block is Chancellor I doubt anything will change as far as institutional support. Sadly. UCLA Athletics has a rich and compelling history. I hate to see it sullied by this.
I read this article yesterday...but the numbers are still staggering. I believe the loss of Under Armour contract and funds from that are also factored into the Athletic Dept losses.
I assume that’s true and is to be factored in; however; Dan Guerrero was kept in his job because he was a “great fiscal manager,”however; I think it was maybe two or three years before he left where I began reading information that UCLA was down the hole. I guess we can attribute this year to that, but previously there had been some red too. I wonder what those are attributed.
In general- sports aren’t for the most part profitable enterprises. There was an article written a couple of years back regarding the profitability of La Liga (the Spanish Professional Soccer league) and out of the 20 teams only 3 are profitable, but none are serious about winning trophies. They just cash in on any assets they have and turn it into profit, whether that is a player contract being sold for big gains to bigger clubs, or having marketing campaigns (Middle East or China) where they can get twice the money in marketing contracts compared to what they would generate locally or in Europe.
All of this doesn’t surprise me at all, and my questions would be: 1. When was the last time UCLA Athletic Department profitable? 2. What was happening at that point on the field and on the court? (Considering that men’s football & basketball are the only two really profitable “sports products” a university really has) 3. How do Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Cincinnati Athletic Department fare off compared to UCLA’s considering that these 4 programs have done a great job this season in football (which is the biggest revenue setter for a university) in terms of their finances?
To cut it short, I play on a highly competitive amateur soccer league, the coach and a few other people (none players) pay for the team’s season registration which is about 500$ and the weekly cost of 120$ to “pay the ref.” There’s are 12 to 14 teams in the league on average every season. Each team plays twice, plus if you make it to the playoffs then add another 4 games more. The 1st place winner of the league gets 5K in prize money, 2nd place 3K. In essence, only those two teams can be “profitable” the rest are always going to be in the red.
I don’t know the intricacies of how a collegiate athletic department work, but from what little knowledge I have, it is obvious that there are serious issues in what’s being invested and what’s being returned on investment.
This is not a very well reasoned comment. Comparing major college athletics to "La Liga" is high farce. First, professional sports teams, even those in third world countries, are assets. They can be sold. And valued. College teams cannot be sold and there would be no basis for a valuation analysis. A quick Google search reveals that the most valuable Mexican soccer club is only worth $77 million (UCLA athletics generates annual revenue exceeding that number). That is an extraordinarily low valuation for a professional sports team in any country. By contrast, the LA Galaxy, which has virtually no fan base and is in a league that even die hard soccer fans do not care about, is worth nearly $1 billion. Hell, MLS literally has a team called "Minnesota United FC" worth half a bil.
Second, your comment "sports aren’t for the most part profitable enterprises" is inapplicable, particularly when you try to compare a multi-billion dollar industry to men's league soccer. All 30 NBA teams are profitable. All 30 MLB teams are profitable. Before covid, all 30 NHL teams were profitable. All 32 NFL teams are profitable.
But the real reason this makes no sense is because major college athletics obviously should be profitable. They have major tv deals. Major ticket revenue. Major donations from billionaire alumni. And major endorsements. One of the flagship schools in a Power 5 conference should be no exception. UCLA athletics' budget deficit should not be surprising, it should be shocking. It has only been running a budget deficit in 2019. 2019 WAS THE FIRST TIME IN 15 YEARS THAT HAPPENED. Arizona ran a huge surplus, why can't UCLA?
I'd love for our AD to answer the following question, not that the vast majority of this is his fault: Without using the phrase "covid" (because it did not exist in 2019), where has the money been going AND WHY? Now would be a great time to stop shutting down basketball ticket revenue because a few players had flu symptoms. It's mismanagement like this that results in schools shutting down certain non-revenue sports that really don't put a dent in the budget anyway.
As long as Block is Chancellor I doubt anything will change as far as institutional support. Sadly. UCLA Athletics has a rich and compelling history. I hate to see it sullied by this.
lol