The article was extremely misleading. Crippling debt??? Seriously? He insinuates that the taxpayers are paying Saban's salary and paying for stadium renovations. He absolutely knows this isn't so, but he insinuates it, leaving the uninformed reader to make assumptions which aren't accurate. It was an intentionally misleading and dishonest article. Bama had a bond issue to overhaul the stadium and improve athletic facilities. The payback on the bonds is about $10 million per year. It's paid back primarily by the athletic department from revenue generated by football, and underwritten by the state (not surprising since the state owns the stadium and other facilities).
The article totally (and intentionally) misses the point: football generates a huge amount of money and pays for its own expenses such as facilities, salaries, and operating costs, plus it funds the non-revenue generating sports, and gives millions back to the university for funding professors, scholarships, new buildings, etc. It's not being funded by taxpayers. It's funding stuff that taxpayers would've had to pay for if not for football generating so much money.
That brought to mind another Forbes article from a while back....
Nick Saban Will Make $11 Million Next Football Season And He Is Worth Every Penny