I see no reason why those hobbies should not have their participants fund them themselves. Or get some direct donations from alumni. Or raise funds somehow.
That's why I added the qualifier "at the level they're currently played" because right now those sports all get access to extremely high level facilities that simply wouldn't exist without cash cow sports like football.
What's the rationale for funding those niche sports?
Mostly if a university gets some extra no-strings-attached funding it will set up a new research lab or endow a new chair or build new buildings or perhaps just stick it in the bank or give all the senior administrators a raise.
They could get this windfall money by cutting funding to rowing, but they don't. Is it somehow advantageous to invest sports money back into sports?
I know there's a mandate through Title IX to fund women's sports, and sometimes they have to be pretty creative to find "sports" they can spend enough money on that engage the women students, but that doesn't explain what I'm asking about.
> What's the rationale for funding those niche sports?
You've been capitalism-pilled. Sometimes it's worth funding things that "aren't worth funding". Not everything needs to return an easily measurable 10% YoY. Investing in the richness of experience for your population or student body or community is a good thing, even if it doesn't always pay itself back in an obvious way. Well-rounded people are happier, more resilient, and yes, more productive.
Don't blow the whole budget on underwater basket-weaving, but investing a bit in enrichment and supporting niches is an important part of life.
Yes. University is not a place to fund amateur that is student productions of either. If they teach, ofc students should get the facilities they pay for.
