I think it is a bit misleading. A college may reasonably come to the conclusion that a certain percentage of their alumni contributions are because of a high-profile sports program. Additionally, at many schools alumni networking revolves around large football and other sporting events.

I admit I do not have the numbers to back it up, so attack it all you want, but it is undeniable a high amount of social cohesion is created by these sporting events at many schools. Is it ideal - no - but like marketing, it is often about what people want rather than what they say they want.

That article is mixing football revenue and sports overall. Lots to parse there, and it is from 2014. But to OP's point about $2 million salaries, that only occurs in the best Division I teams. And those teams pull in upwards of $214 million a year in revenue: https://247sports.com/ContentGallery/College-sports-top-25-m...

From that article..."According to the Texas Tribune, "a successful football team can prop up an entire athletic department." However, more often than not, college athletics programs are not fully self-supporting, even with football money."

Football money gets spent to prop up other sports in college, typically, and that's where the confusion may be here. I'm sure there are some schools charging some minor fees to students for one athletic program or another, but its not like tuition is going towards football, by and large. At my alma mater, the football program pays into the university (UF).