If the subsidy is calculated as (expenditures - revenues), where revenues include ticket and jersey sales, and television rights, something important is being left out -- the value of athletic success for marketing the college. See
The Flutie Effect: How Athletic Success Boosts College Applications. Am I the only one who knows nothing about "Gonzaga" except that it has had some basketball success? Mention "Alabama", and I think football, and I am less interested in sports than most men.
Academics have generally resisted efforts to measure how much students are learning in a way that can be compared across schools. So if they don't like the emphasis on amenities, sports, and post-college earnings, they have partly themselves to blame. College is usually discussed by policymakers as an investment good, since it's tough to justify subsidizing fun. In reality, it is both investment and consumption.
