U of M Total Operating Revenue by Sport for 2024 (football is 75%, other 18 sports are 25%)

Donate To GopherHole
S

SeaBee_Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2022
Messages
416
Reaction score
500
Points
63
I stole this information and link from GopherGrit from the "Scoggins: Mark Coyle" thread. I just thought it was great information many of you would be interested in seeing too. I did not view the whole report and just jumped to the revenue summary page on 29. If we assume "Not Allocated by Gender" revenue is earned at about the same ratio as gender allocated revenue and ignore that column, these are the results.

75% - Football (the other 18 sports generate the remaining 25% of revenue)
12% - M Basketball (with obvious potential to earn a lot more if they can turn the program around)
6% - M Hockey
93% of Revenue ($113.5MM/$121.3MM) (95% of total revenue is generated by men's sports)

1.5% - W Basketball
1.4% - W Volleyball
96% of Revenue is earned by the above 5 sports (Question: Do women's basketball and volleyball have the greatest growth potential outside of men's basketball?)

<1% each - Every other sport (even women's hockey which surprised me)

We all knew this at a high level, but numbers are helpful. Only football and men's basketball are likely profitable for the university after expenses. Maybe men's hockey breaks even and, as the state of hockey, should be untouchable. Everything else is losing money. The crazy thing is saying football generates 75% of athletic department revenue is actually the GENEROUS way to phrase this. Businesses are not successful based on revenues, but on PROFITABILITY.

1751300043197.png

https://gophersports.com/documents/2025/1/14/Minnesota_FY24_NCAA_Online_Report_-_FINAL_01.14.25.pdf​

 
Last edited:

SeaBee_Gopher said:
I stole this information and link from GopherGrit from the "Scoggins: Mark Coyle" thread. I just thought it was great information many of you would be interested in seeing too. I did not view the whole report and just jumped to the revenue summary page on 29. If we assume "Not Allocated by Gender" revenue is earned at about the same ratio as gender allocated revenue and ignore that column, these are the results.

75% - Football (the other 18 sports generate the remaining 25% of revenue)
12% - M Basketball (with obvious potential to earn a lot more if they can turn the program around)
6% - M Hockey
93% of Revenue ($113.5MM/$121.3MM) (95% of total revenue is generated by men's sports)

1.5% - W Basketball
1.4% - W Volleyball
96% of Revenue is earned by the above 5 sports (Question: Do women's basketball and volleyball have the greatest growth potential outside of men's basketball?)

<1% each - Every other sport (even women's hockey which surprised me)

We all knew this at a high level, but numbers are helpful. Only football and men's basketball are likely profitable for the university after expenses. Maybe men's hockey breaks even and, as the state of hockey, should be untouchable. Everything else is losing money. The crazy thing is saying football generates 75% of athletic department revenue is actually the GENEROUS way to phrase this. Businesses are not successful based on revenues, but on PROFITABILITY.

View attachment 37538

https://gophersports.com/documents/2025/1/14/Minnesota_FY24_NCAA_Online_Report_-_FINAL_01.14.25.pdf​

Click to expand...
men's hockey at the U makes money and is one of the only profitable sports outside of FB and MBB in the country. Its peanuts compared to the others at about 1.8mil (7.8 revenue, 6.05 expenses). Women's hockey loses 3mil. Womens basketball loses 4mil. Womens VB loses 1.8mil
 

upnorthkid said:
men's hockey at the U makes money and is one of the only profitable sports outside of FB and MBB in the country. Its peanuts compared to the others at about 1.8mil (7.8 revenue, 6.05 expenses). Women's hockey loses 3mil. Womens basketball loses 4mil. Womens VB loses 1.8mil
Click to expand...
I also have to think that the only reason men's hockey does not generate as much revenue as men's basketball is television contracts. That's speculation but Men's hockey has recently had higher average attendance so ticket sales (regardless of ticket price) cannot explain that variance. Maybe some sponsorship or advertising revenue plays a role too. But since men's basketball is the second most important for all of the BIG conference, we ride the coattails of other schools a bit there.
 

Crosby said:
I also have to think that the only reason men's hockey does not generate as much revenue as men's basketball is television contracts. That's speculation but Men's hockey has recently had higher average attendance so ticket sales (regardless of ticket price) cannot explain that variance. Maybe some sponsorship or advertising revenue plays a role too. But since men's basketball is the second most important for all of the BIG conference, we ride the coattails of other schools a bit there.
Click to expand...
Mens hockey revenue dropped when we joined the Big ten due to losing the local TV games to some degree. Obviously made up for by the overall money from the Big ten, but it just makes it look like mens hockey isn't making as much as it used to.
 
Last edited:

Word said:
Mens hockey revenue dropped when we joined the Big ten due to losing the local TV games to alsome degree. Obviously made up for by the overall money from the Big ten, but it just makes it look like mens hockey isn't making as much as it used to.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize that I guess. But I guess it makes sense. The Gophers could probably generate as much (or likely more) from their own TV contract as opposed to being part of the BIG.
 


Crosby said:
I didn't realize that I guess. But I guess it makes sense. The Gophers could probably generate as much (or likely more) from their own TV contract as opposed to being part of the BIG.
Click to expand...
this is actually part one of the big pains i have with the gophers moving to the B10. the move actually really hurts Gopher hockey's following in the state when you go from being on TV pretty much every game on a public broadcast to now you have to buy B10 with a special package to be able to watch them half the time. BTN (main network) has next to no interest in putting a quality hockey product out there because the national numbers for college hockey are terrible to the point where showing college VB and wrestling make more money.

trouble is the tv contract is for everything, they just don't ever show hockey
 
Last edited:

upnorthkid said:
men's hockey at the U makes money and is one of the only profitable sports outside of FB and MBB in the country. Its peanuts compared to the others at about 1.8mil (7.8 revenue, 6.05 expenses). Women's hockey loses 3mil. Womens basketball loses 4mil. Womens VB loses 1.8mil
Click to expand...
Can someone help me understand how Men's hockey doesn't generate more revenue? Is it more than just ticket sales?
I know that for years the sellout culture that was Mariuccui was on life support, especially during the late Lucia years, but hasn't the program historically sold really well?

Or, is this not about ticket sales and more about the broader niche space college hockey fills in the national landscape, resulting in low-revenue tv deals? Do TV deals even factor into revenue figures in the OP post?

I just am discouraged that Men's hockey isn't healthier. I really felt like we were kicking off another dynastic period following the back to back titles in what is now TWENTY YEARS AGO....but we've mostly seen a program that has frittered away top end talent and failed to build cohesive rosters that can compete top-down with gritter, more mature teams.

I like hockey a lot, it's the only other program on campus that I care about.
 

Mr. 131 said:
Can someone help me understand how Men's hockey doesn't generate more revenue? Is it more than just ticket sales?
I know that for years the sellout culture that was Mariuccui was on life support, especially during the late Lucia years, but hasn't the program historically sold really well?

Or, is this not about ticket sales and more about the broader niche space college hockey fills in the national landscape, resulting in low-revenue tv deals? Do TV deals even factor into revenue figures in the OP post?

I just am discouraged that Men's hockey isn't healthier. I really felt like we were kicking off another dynastic period following the back to back titles in what is now TWENTY YEARS AGO....but we've mostly seen a program that has frittered away top end talent and failed to build cohesive rosters that can compete top-down with gritter, more mature teams.

I like hockey a lot, it's the only other program on campus that I care about.
Click to expand...
for college hockey, the men's program is extremely healthy in terms of gate (especially post those dark years) and revenue. College hockey is just a niche sport. you're not going to do well showing college hockey on big BTN in California as compared with endless bouncy ball. In keeping it healthy,
The money is always going to be lower there as compared with other sports as hockey trails drastically in terms of professional leagues (NFL 18.6billion, MLB 11.6, NBA 10.6, NHL 6.2) with college hockey being a much more finite number of teams spread very regionally. There's a reason they just show regional broadcasts on BTN+ as they don't make money and the Big Ten decided making money was what they wanted to do and the Universities were good with it as the checks are high.

To keep it healthy, the U needs to figure out their ticket pricing to keep the arena full. It's how you make lifelong fans and keep them coming back. A regional broadcast would be nice, but the U now is prioritizing up front gate and sacrificing long-term imo in how they charge for tickets. Packing the place and making atmosphere goes far further than making ticket prices feel exclusive. They've done the smart thing and lowered the prices back down which has coincided with crowds getting better again (I remember very vividly a playoff series with Michigan you could've thrown a puck in any direction from center ice and had maybe a 1% chance of hitting someone at puck drop). That said its still one of if not the most expensive ticket in college hockey (UNDs whole rink is $545 for season tickets, comparatively with the U ranging from 500-800 then 1300 for club).
 

Football and MBB have been the big money earners for years, even decades. TV revenues have just enhanced their contribution.
 





If even men’s hockey is break even at the U, then how is St. Thomas going to avoid bleeding money all over the place?
Seems like they’re only in it for the brand power of D1 athletics.
 




Goldmember said:
If even men’s hockey is break even at the U, then how is St. Thomas going to avoid bleeding money all over the place?
Seems like they’re only in it for the brand power of D1 athletics.
Click to expand...
Mid major athletics are heavily subsidized. UND hockey loses money. NDSU FB loses money. SDSU's athletic dept revenue is 37% student fees against $6.5 million in ticket sales. USD generates a paltry $1.5 million in ticket sales and has over 60% of its revenue from student fees. These schools are all opting in. It's not sustainable.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom