The football programs are mostly non-profits, same with the NCAA. So no, profit, at least for the major programs, is not a concern. The programs receive millions from multiple sources that are spent on staff, coaches and other sports that need to be spent (Universities are not supposed to be profit making institutions). While the athletes that are generating the revenue through their performance every Saturday are paid with scholarships and money for room and board (can't be more than $60k or $70k a year - assumption here). Works out great for the coaches and administrators, not so great for the athletes. It is also not in the NCAA, college administrators, boosters or coaches interest to have the current setup change. Why mess with a good thing. No competition for player salaries leaves more in the coffers to pay the coaches.

> The football programs are mostly non-profits, same with the NCAA. So no, profit, at least for the major programs, is not a concern.

Non-profit doesn't mean “doesn’t earn profits” or “doesn’t prioritize profit”, but “doesn’t return profits to investors”.

We can agree that profit is gross revenue minus expenses, correct? Non-profits are focused on maximizing the revenue, but not on the profit for the exact reason you stated, there are no share holders or investors that need to be paid dividends, etc. The non-profit is incentivized to put the net revenue back into the organization. This can be in the form of staff salaries, facilities, other programs in the university. The "profit" portion in a given year means they are just carrying over the revenue for future operations or to stash in a fund. It should not be used in a argument for the "major" universities or top performing programs as to whether or not they should play the players. Revenues are not an issue in those cases. Don't cry to me (universities) that you don't have the money to pay student athletes when your university made over $100+ million dollars in a year and you "barely made a profit" as a non-profit organization.

I can't find the original HBO Real Sports link, but they go into depth about the Non-profit status and the way the funding is spent. It is a real eye opener and made me rethink how the argument that profit/revenue should be considered when dealing with the larger organizations.

Below are references, but not only highlights.

https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/student-athlete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK5BmWP1y98

> The "profit" portion in a given year means they are just carrying over the revenue for future operations or to stash in a fund. It should not be used in a argument for the "major" universities or top performing programs as to whether or not they should play the players.

Why not? The economic value of work to the entity for which it is performed is a significant factor in the criteria under which the law now requires other formerly unpaid, often student, workers such as many interns to be paid, even when their employer is a nonprofit. Why should athletes be treated worse?