equipment, in the 33 institutions from which returns were received, amounts to $18,097,352. The University of Illinois has an investment of $2,882,368 in its athletic plant, a sum exceeding the individual valuation of the entire physical plant of 9 other land-grant colleges. The Ohio State University has the second largest investment in an athletic plant, the amount being $1,900,228. Third on the list is the University of Minnesota with $1,836,937 invested in athletics and fourth is the University of Nebraska with $1,250,000.

Of the remaining institutions, 1 has investments between $900,000 and $1,000,000; 1 between $800,000 and $900,000; 1 between $700,000 and $800,000; 3 between $500,000 and $600,000; 3 between $400,000 and $500,000; 4 between $300,000 and $400,000; 2 between $200,000 and $300,000; 4 between $100,000 and $200,000; and 2 between $50,000 and $100,000.

The land-grant colleges with the smallest athletic plants are the North Dakota Agricultural College, the investment being $26,697, and the Mississippi Agricultural and Mechanical College with $10,000. It must be understood that the capital outlays represent investments both for intercollegiate and intramural athletics and facilities for the entire physical education program, although the greater proportions are expended for intercollegiate athletics.

From this cursory review of capital investments in athletic plants, it is evident that athletics have developed into enterprises of great magnitude in many of the land-grant institutions and no longer are simply sources of recreation and diversion for the student body. The capital outlays for athletics constitute a rather large proportion of the total capital investment in some institutions. For instance, the University of Wyoming has a total capital investment of $2,871,000 in its entire physical plant while the capital investment in its athletic plant amounts to $464,000, or 16 per cent. Similarly the Agricultural College of Utah has invested $205,000 in its athletic plant as compared with $1,546,698 in its entire educational plant, the proportion being 13 per cent. The University of Illinois has a similar proportion of capital investment in its athletic plant.

The proportion of capital outlay in athletic plants to the entire institutional physical plants is 12 per cent in the cases of the University of Idaho, University of Nebraska, Rutgers University, and Virginia Agricultural and Mechanical College, while it is 11 per cent in the Colorado Agricultural College, and 10 per cent in the University of Kentucky, University of Maryland, and University of Vermont. Of the remainder, the proportions range from 5 to 10 per cent in 9 institutions and between 1 and 5 per cent in 11 institutions.

Among the institutions having small capital investments in their athletic plant as compared with their entire physical plants are the North Dakota Agricultural College and the Mississippi Agricultural and Mechanical College with but 1 per cent; Purdue University, University of Tennessee, and the University of New Hamp

shire with 2 per cent; and the University of Florida and Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas with 3 per cent. At two of the larger institutions, the University of Wisconsin and Cornell University, the capital investments in athletic plants represent only 4 per cent of the valuation of their entire institutional plant.

A factor of utmost importance in considering capital investments in athletic plants is whether State and institutional funds have been utilized to finance their construction or whether the athletic plants have been built through athletic receipts, outside gifts, and loans. A careful inquiry has been made into the subject. According to the returns, the athletic plants of 3 land-grant colleges have been financed entirely by State appropriations and in 22 others they have been financed in part from funds provided by the State. Institutional funds alone were used to construct the athletic plant of only one institution, 18 other plants were constructed in part by institutional funds. Ten institutions have used neither State nor institutional funds and have depended entirely on athletic receipts, outside gifts or loans to defray the capital costs of their athletic plants.

The capital investments in athletic plants of most of the land-grant colleges, as already indicated, have not been obtained from a single source. Of the institutions, which have used State funds in part, 2 built their athletic plants both from State and institutional funds; 4 from State funds and athletic receipts; 3 from State funds, institutional funds and gifts; 2 from State funds, athletic receipts, and loans; 3 from State funds, gifts, and loans; and 1 from State funds, institutional funds, athletic receipts, and gifts. The institutions which have used no State funds, but have erected their athletic plants partially through institutional funds and other sources, include 1 where the plant was financed through institutional funds and athletic receipts; 1 through institu tional funds and gifts; 3 through institutional funds, athletic receipts, and gifts; 1 through institutional funds, athletic receipts, and loans; and 1 through funds derived from institutional appropriations, athletic receipts, gifts, and loans. Among the 10 land-grant colleges which have adopted a policy of financing athletic plants without use of State or institutional funds, 1 institution has used athletic receipts alone; 2 have used gifts and loans; and 4 athletic receipts, gifts, and loans.

Large loans have been underwritten in order to finance the construction of athletic plants at a number of institutions. The returns disclose that 16 institutions have borrowed money for this purpose either through bond issues or long-time bank loans secured by mortgages. The amount borrowed by these institutions totals $2,733,813 and represents an average of 23 per cent of their total capital investments in athletic plants. The loans made by some of the colleges, however, equal 50 per cent of the cost of the plants. Of the total amount of loans on athletic plants, the sum of $1,215,531 has been repaid up to June 30, 1928, leaving an unpaid balance of $1,518,282. Ohio State University has made the largest loan of any land-grant institution to finance the construction of its athletic plant, the amount being $555,000, of which $152,500 was still unpaid on June 30, 1928.

Second on the list is the University of Minnesota with a loan of $450,000, with $350,000 unpaid, while the third largest loan has been made by the University of Illinois, the amount being $358,800, all of which has been repaid except $44,000. The universities of Missouri, Nebraska, and Cornell have each borrowed $200,000 for athletic plants with unpaid balances of $140,000, $180,000, and $155,000, respectively.

Other loans of considerable size have been made by the Georgia State College of Agriculture with a loan of $185,000 and $150,000 unpaid, the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas with a loan of $160,000 and $80,000 unpaid, and Kansas State Agricultural College with a loan of $115,420 with only $16,050 unpaid.

In the remaining institutions where loans were made to build athletic plants, the amounts range from $6,000 to $75,000 the greater per cent of which is outstanding.

Annual receipts from athletics like capital outlays in athletic plants are of large proportions in many of the land-grant institutions. The data for 41 institutions are presented in the table together with comparative figures on their annual incomes from all sources for the fiscal year 1928. The annual athletic receipts for these institutions total $4,545,217, an amount far in excess of the educational incomes of many of the land-grant institutions. Ohio State University has annual athletic revenues totaling $538,478, the largest of any of the institutions submitting reports. The institution with the second largest athletic receipts is the University of Illinois, the amount being $525,479; the University of Minnesota is third, with athletic receipts of $498,242; the University of Wisconsin fourth with receipts amounting to $332,778; Cornell University fifth with $262,768. The athletic receipts of the other land-grant colleges range from $6,600 in the case of Rhode Island to $190.000 in the case of Nebraska.

Since receipts from athletics have reached such large figures in many of the land-grant colleges, it is sometimes assumed that the policy should be adopted of making athletic earnings defray all of the operating expenses of athletics without resorting to State appropriations, subsidies from institutions, or assessments of special fees against students, and even that they should assist in supporting other student extracurricular activities. In dealing with this question it will be necessary to differentiate between intercollegiate and intramural athletics as their finances are administered separately in some cases. Intercollegiate athletics will be considered first. The reports show that only 8 of the land-grant institutions defray the operating costs of intercollegiate athletics from earnings alone, while 27 institutions assess a special athletic fee against the students using revenues

derived from this source as well as athletic earnings to meet the current expenses of intercollegiate athletics. In the remaining universities and colleges, the athletic earnings apparently being insufficient, it has been necessary for the States to make appropriations or the institutions to grant subsidies. One institution reports that the intercollegiate operating expenses are paid through athletic earnings, State appropriations, and institutional subsidies, three others through athletic earnings, State appropriations, and student athletic fees; and three through athletic earnings, institutional subsidies, and student athletic fees.

Intramural athletics are an integral part of college athletics and are more important in furnishing recreation and diversion to the general student body than intercollegiate athletics. The returns indicate that in the case of 12 land-grant colleges the expenses of intramural athletics are defrayed wholly or in part by the earnings of intercollegiate athletics. Of this number two institutions support intramural athletics from athletic earnings alone; five by athletic earnings supplemented by student athletic fees; two by athletic earnings supplemented by student athletic fees and State appropriations; one by athletic earnings, supplemented by student athletic fees and institutional subsidies; and one by athletic earnings supplemented by State appropriations and institutional subsidies. The support of intramural athletics is dependent upon State appropriations, institutional subsidies, or the assessment of athletic fees against the students in the other universities and colleges submitting returns. Five institutions report that the operating costs of intramural athletics are paid entirely by State appropriations. In three universities the source of support consists wholly of institutional subsidies and in two colleges the support is derived solely from student athletic fees. Intramural athletics are financed partially by institutional subsidies and State appropriations in two additional institutions while in three others both institutional subsidies and student athletic fees form the means of support.

Of vital import and significance is the control and administration of college athletics, particularly in view of the capital investments, loans, and large amounts of moneys handled annually. Another portion of this report discusses in detail the organizations created in the different land-grant colleges for the general supervision of intercollegiate and intramural athletics so that only questions connected with the actual business and financial procedure will be taken up here.

It has already been pointed out that the different types of organizations for the control of athletics include student athletic associa

tions, committees of the faculty and administrative officers, special athletic officers, departments of physical education, and other agencies. Regardless of the type of organization existing, the reports show that all moneys connected with athletics are collected and disbursed by the institutional business officer in 26 institutions. Athletic moneys are handled by student athletic associations or similar organizations in 10 institutions, and by athletic councils or boards of control consisting of faculty or administrative officers in 4, while in the case of 1 institution such moneys are handled by the athletic manager, who is an institutional officer.

Inquiry into the question of final authority over the athletic funds, including power of issuance of requisitions, vouchers and other methods of disbursement discloses a variety of complicated financial and business procedures. Without doubt the most efficacious plan of controlling athletic finances is to handle them in the same manner as the finances of any regular division or unit of the institutional establishment are administered. The returns indicate that this practice, however, has been adopted in the case of only 13 institutions where athletics are regarded as part of the functions of the department of physical education and all funds administered accordingly. In nine institutions financial administration is exercised by an athletic committee or council of the faculty assisted by a graduate manager or director and in three by a committee composed of both faculty members and students. A dual system of control over athletic finances by the student athletic organization and the institutional administration exists in seven universities. Although the athletic moneys, as already shown, are collected by student athletic associations in 10 institutions, full authority over the disposition of the funds themselves rests in the student athletic organizations in only four cases, the remaining six being compelled to submit to institutional supervision. The business control of athletic finances is vested in a director of athletics appointed by the institution in two other cases, in a graduate manager responsible to a student board. in a third, in an athletic council of the faculty in a fourth, and an athletic board of students in a fifth institution.

Notwithstanding the fact that this presentation indicates that most of the land-grant institutions have retained control over the financial affairs of athletics, there is need for revision of the practices prevailing. The plan of delegating to a committee or board composed of faculty members the responsibility of collecting and disbursing large sums of athletic moneys is inconsistent with their primary duties as academic officers. It is likewise difficult to comprehend