The New York Times recently ran an article discussing the UCLA athletics department's struggles to generate revenue. They reported that attendance at the Rose Bowl for UCLA home games has been down by approximately 50% since 2014, despite the school giving out roughly 20,000 free tickets per game. The school has tried repeatedly to promote season ticket sales - even recording Troy Aikman robocalls to ask previous season ticket holders to purchase new packages. However, UCLA is stuck in its contract with the Rose Bowl through 2042, and building an on-campus stadium is nearly impossible due to building costs and lack of available land.

Their financial struggles aren't limited to poor game attendance - Under Armour recently breached their $280 million contract with UCLA due to poor merchandise sales. Under Armour was previously scheduled to pay UCLA over $10 million per year in cash in addition to free athletics equipment each year, but breached the contract and settled after lawsuits to pay a $67 million buyout to leave the contract. In return, UCLA signed a contract with Nike that only pays $500k per year in cash - a dramatic step down from the Under Armour deal.

All together, it sounds like UCLA's sole path to generate revenue is leaving the PAC12 for the Big Ten due to its massive media rights contract. I'm curious how the fraction of athletics department revenue from media rights vs ticket sales, merchandise, and donors has changed over time for schools like UCLA compared to the larger athletics programs like OSU. Is there a path for college football to sustain revenue beyond media rights?