And that's why people so easily believe whatever they want to be true, no matter what their beliefs happen to be. Of course there are real numbers, by definition. The fact that most don't understand them, want to understand them, or even would be capable of understanding them, doesn't negate their reality.
If you feel this way check out the link I provided it has (TAX FREE) numbers for what was provided to individual colleges from different media outlets. The average looked like between 37 and 59 million per year.
Just interest on those investments could pay everyones tuition. Its a racket.
Tax free interest ;-)
Its more beneficial to more players to change than not to change - that alone should be a reason to change.
Yes, seniors who no longer care versus juniors who definitely do, i.e. trapped players get screwed again which is the point surely.
Why would colleges spend all their endowments on money losing sports ... they won't and shouldn't. If they want to splurge the cash it should be to provide a free education to people who deserve it, not kids whose parents have spent 10s of thousands on travel soccer ... FFS
I don't even agree that youth soccer clubs should be tax exempt ... and don't get me started on other tax exempt entities - biggest crock of crap Congress ever came up with. If your CEO is getting paid big bucks or employees are getting paid in the million$, then F NO, you are not tax exempt and you are not a NON PROFIT for everyone.Ok, do you agree that both public and private colleges are tax exempt?
The Big Business of Tax-Free College Sports
Moving from one athletic conference to another can mean millions in additional revenue sharing from lucrative broadcasting contracts and other revenue streams, all tax-free.taxfoundation.org
What's Harvard at now, $18B or more ....
That sounded low, so I checked...$53 billion. Even some publics have crazy endowments. Michigan is $19b. My daughter was accepted there and it would have cost $75k a year, including on campus room and board and that was 3 years ago. OOS tuition is now $55k. That's obscene. 5% on $19b is $950m a year, just saying.
No question there are abuses, but that's a problem of enforcement by our government, not an inherent structural issue with tax exempt companies. The CEO's and employees are not tax exempt, so they still pay taxes. Colleges are different because they're hoarding cash and still charging exorbitant tuition while financing that tuition with government lending programs (and then our government promotes the grift by forgiving student loans.) The colleges exploit government backed student loans to build these insane endowments which impacts all taxpayers.
For a small handful of schools in the biggest and richest athletic conferences.
That's an interesting take.
For a very, very small handful of schools. For virtually everybody else, it's not the case. Look at the larger numbers. US News & World Reports lists 379 nationally-ranked universities. Average endowment 1.6B. Average # of undergrad students is 6.5K. Say grad is 2K. Take 1.6B / 8.5K, and it's $188K per student. Forget about interest - if they used the entire endowment to pay tuition, which wouldn't be off-base if you take $188K/4 years, all endowments would be completely gone in 4 years.
Michigan is #3 on the list for endowments for public schools. It's massive. It's also 4 times the school that is #10 on the list. Could Michigan use more of the endowment to make up for lowering tuition? Of course. But what they can do, and what most schools can do, are very different.
There are 132 universities with endowments over $1 billion. These colleges are the ultimate in government grifters. Those that have excessive endowments should have to put a certain amount into reducing tuition or pay a "luxury tax" (and/or have a restriction on government funding). Why should taxpayers have to fund tuition, research, etc of a university with a multi-billion dollar endowment.
No, it is drifting into pointing out that people have widely incorrect assumptions - and learning things that counter one's own beliefs is challenging for most.
Ah. So by that logic a stadium that is half-full should give out free tickets for the remaining half of seats. Or a movie theatre.
That's weird logic. The real cost (i.e. opportunity cost) is the amount that spot could have been sold for, and the amount the room & board could have been sold for. By extension, the real cost is how much extra students are paying to cover any and all scholarships (sports & academic), because someone is obviously paying. You can offset the cost versus the revenue the sport brings in, but the revenue sports such as soccer brings in is a net loss in probably every college. So if colleges can self fund sports from sports revenues, then it makes sense. If they can't then they are paying for sports out of funds that could be used for education, i.e. their core purpose.
www.soccerparenting.com
This is why I said that colleges can prioritize sports if they choose to.
You mean like the Padres do on Miltary night? Or any other pro team does to get groups of people in the gate that might help the sport/club in some way shape or fashion?
So parents that worked and made good decisions with money don't deserve scholarships?
Speaking of grifters... how can you not love a politician that makes $400k a year to teach part time and then supports eliminating college student loan debt by dumping it on the rest of us?
IMV, it should be based on academics and finances.
