An alkane with 60 carbon atoms has the formula $\ce{C60H122}$. To get the degree of unsaturation of fullerene, you have to successively add dihydrogen to it until you have an alkane. For each double bond turned into a single bond, you need one dihydrogen. For each single bond you break (to remove rings), you need one dihydrogen. Looking at the formula of fullerene, you will need 61 dihydrogen molecules to turn it into an alkane, so the degree of unsaturation is 61.
If a ring system has N rings, it does not mean you need to break N bonds to open them all up. Here is an example with 4 rings:
I only need to break 3 bonds to get a non-cyclic alkane:
This is because the first cut breaks two rings at the same time.
EDIT:
This insightful comment made me think more about counting rings.
[Nicolau Saker Neto in the comments] Because C60 fullerene is so close to a sphere, I can't help but bring up this curiosity - the reason the formula is slightly off comes down to the fact that a 3D sphere missing even just a single infinitesimal point is topologically homeomorphic to a plane, but a complete 3D sphere is not, so there really is something special about that first cut.
If you contemplate the structure of naphthalene and norbornane, you will see that they are topologically equivalent. They both have two bridging carbons connected by three links. Yet most of us would probably count two rings for naphthalene and three rings for norbornane.
In the "flattened" view, it becomes clear why: In the top structure, we probably will not count the outer 10-membered loop, but in the bottom structure, we will typically count the outer 6-membered loop (and the two 5-membered rings). For the degree of unsaturation, you should only count "inner" rings in the flattened view of the molecule.
For fullerenes, this means counting one ring less, just as the analysis of breaking bonds to remove all the rings shows.