Athletics and academics have long played interactive roles in collegiate culture, but a new study suggests that the interaction isn’t balanced.

As colleges across the country spend increasingly more on athletic programs — a median $84,446 per athlete in 2008, up almost 38% from 2005 — academic spending hasn’t changed proportionally — a median $13,349 per student, up about 20% over the same period, according to a report released today by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.

Over 18 months, the athletic reform commission compiled data on college sports finances and found that at institutions belonging to major athletics conferences, median spending per athlete ranged from four to almost 11 times more than median spending on students for educational purposes. In 2008, median per capita athletics spending for Football Bowl Subdivision conference institutions was $84,446, compared to a median $13,349 per capita for academic spending.

Based on financial reports from the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s top 10 spenders, their average budget in 2009 was $98 million. The Knight Commission expects that figure to reach $165 million in 2015 and $254 million in 2020.

In publishing the report, commission officials call on universities to institute financial reform by placing academics first and practicing responsible spending. They make three recommendations:

1) Greater financial transparency by making NCAA financial reports public and publishing more frequent, more in-depth spending reports.

2) Reward practices that prioritize academics and fortifying championship participation eligibility standards.

3) Treat college athletes as students, not as professionals, such as limiting commercial exposure.

“Academic reform hit a tipping point when graduation rates for student-athletes were first shared publicly,” the report reads. “We believe the same will be true for financial reform when there is far greater openness about spending on college sports — in absolute dollars, in growth levels, and in comparison to academic budgets.”

The report also suggests considering coaches’ compensation with respect to the institutions they represent. “Their compensation should reflect the values of the amateur athletics programs that they oversee, not the values of professional sports teams whose major objectives are winning championships and earning profits,” the report reads.

The report’s authors note that financial athletic reform will undoubtedly present challenges to collegiate athletic programs, resulting in greater athletic subsidies, more athletic fees for all students and fewer sports offerings. Commission officials say that these outcomes, however, are “indefensible for an enterprise that exists for the benefit of student participants and should serve to strengthen the academic mission of the university.”