Inside Higher Ed55%
GAO Report: Athletic Programs Bleed Money 51%
By Josh Moody0%
8/7/2026, 12:00:00 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22.5% saturation with 224 hits. Analysis detected 1,886 faulty-reasoning hits from 995 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.8% and a BS Rank of 51% (14,977 of 30,063 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.20% of the article peer group.
Who foots the bill when college athletics can’t pay for themselves?
The answer, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), is a mix of students—who heavily subsidize programs with athletic fees—and the academic enterprise itself.
Virtually all programs rely on funding from outside athletics to cover costs, the report noted.
Released Wednesday at the request of Education and Workforce Committee Chairman, Tim Walberg, the GAO report found that college athletic programs are, for the most part, not self-sustaining.
Altogether, 330 of 352 Division I programs—or 94 percent—lost money in the 2023–24 academic year.
Looking at data from Division I and Division II (DI and DII) programs, the report determined that only 20 of the 69 athletic departments competing at the highest levels in DI generated more than they spent.
Collectively, DI programs spent $20.8 billion in the 2023–24 academic year while making only $13.1 billion (much of it at the upper echelon).
DI athletic departments filled that multibillion dollar gap by tapping tuition and fees, as well as unrestricted funds such as investment income.
The tuition and fees that institutions drew on to address the deficit often included federal student aid, the report found.
The GAO estimated that the median contribution per undergraduate student was $8,500 over four years.
In addition, DI programs received an average of $19.9 million in institutional support to stabilize athletics.
All DII programs spent more money than they generated in the 2023–24 academic year, according to the report; the 297 DII colleges reviewed spent a combined $2.7 billion on athletics while only generating $365 million in collective revenue.
Universities steered $2.3 billion that year to prop up struggling athletic programs.
(Division III colleges, which do not offer athletics scholarships, were not included in the report.)
Walberg, a Michigan Republican, expressed alarm at the findings.
He argued in a news release that “colleges should be investing in student success” and “not asking students and taxpayers to subsidize an athletic spending arms race” as the cost of fielding sports teams continues to climb.
“Students enroll to earn a degree, not to bankroll excessive athletic spending.
This report reinforces why Congress must continue holding colleges accountable for how they spend tuition dollars and federal student aid.
Institutions should focus on delivering value to students—not passing the costs of excessive athletics spending on to students, families, and taxpayers,” Walberg said.
Amy Privette Perko, CEO of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, told Inside Higher Ed by email that her organization’s own research reflected similar spending concerns.
Data collected by the Knight Commission show that between Fiscal Year 2015 and FY25, universities in the power conferences increasingly passed on athletic costs to the student body.
She added that the findings “sounds alarm bells for campus leaders about financial trends for college sports that will require tough decision-making” as reliance on student fees increases.
At James Madison University, which competes at the DI level, students contributed $58.1 million in fees, or 74 percent of athletic revenues in 2025, according to data collected by The Knight Commission and Syracuse University’s S.I.
Newhouse School of Public Communications.
However, a spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed that those figures do not take into account JMU’s unique financial structure; unlike its peer institutions, JMU pays for a range of services and other costs out of its athletics budget rather than the university budget.
He added that instead of an athletics fee, JMU collects a comprehensive fee to support athletics as well as student health services, student activities and other areas.
The spokesperson also noted that Virginia is the only state that regulates how student fees may be applied to college athletics, adding that the university is in compliance with the requirement that limits athletic subsidies to no more than 55 percent its budget, as calculated by the state formula.
At the University of California, Davis, students contributed $28.1 million in athletic fees in 2025, or 56 percent of revenues.
A spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed by email that “when UC Davis students voted to transition the university to Division I [in 2002], they did so in partnership with the university by establishing a funding model that relies primarily on student-approved fees.”
Officials noted that each quarter the university provides a report on how funds are used to the student-led Council on Student Affairs and Fees.
(Officials at several similarly situated universities did not provide comment on Thursday.)
Pending Legislation
The GAO report, which Walberg commissioned last year, comes at a time when Congress appears to have an appetite to reform college athletics.
While passing major college sports legislation has seemed to be a Sisyphean task in recent years, Congress is currently discussing a bipartisan bill that would bring about the most consequential changes to college athletics in years.
On Tuesday, Republican senator Ted Cruz and Democratic senator Maria Cantwell released an updated version of the bill they have been pushing for several months to overhaul college athletics.
Known as the Protect College Sports Act, the proposed legislation would limit conference expansion, implement stricter transfer rules, bar some coaches from switching jobs midseason, and tighten rules around name, image, and likeness policies, among other changes.
The bill would also expand revenue sharing but is neutral on whether athletes should be considered employees.
The higher ed sector has largely embraced the proposal—including the NCAA, which sent Inside Higher Ed multiple letters of support signed by college leaders and athletic conferences last month.
Signatories cast the bill as a needed framework to replace a patchwork of state laws.
The Senate website shows that hundreds of colleges and multiple conferences also support the legislation.
The Protect College Sports Act could receive a vote as early as this week.
While the bill is intended to provide order in a world that many critics and insiders argue has become chaotic, it seems unlikely to rein in athletic spending, which was a core concern of the GAO report.
Speakers
2speakers12%attributed speech875writer words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageTim Walberg
92 attributed words77% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.