Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Haley Stevens (MI-11)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, ahead of the College Football Playoff National Championship on Monday, Reps. Haley Stevens (D-MI) and Michael Baumgartner (R-WA) urged National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) President Charlie Baker to limit the emergence of private equity in college sports. In the bipartisan letter, Stevens and Baumgartner are seeking deeper insight into the NCAA’s decision-making and enforcement mechanisms to prevent deals that sell college athletics programs to the highest bidders and keep universities accountable to their students, fans, athletes, and communities.
Reports indicate that the Big Ten Conference, the Big 12 Conference, and the University of Utah are exploring selling portions of their athletics revenue streams to outside investors. Similarly, the SEC, the University of Notre Dame, and Florida State University have all reported outreach from private equity investors regarding their athletics programs.
“College sports are a uniquely American tradition that have provided invaluable experiences for generations of college athletes, students, and fans,” wrote Stevens and Baumgartner. “As the people’s representatives, we have a responsibility to ensure that the integrity of universities and college sports is preserved for future generations of Americans, not sacrificed for short-term financial gain — especially where outside investors may gain leverage over decisions that should remain accountable to university communities.”
In their letter, Stevens and Baumgartner are seeking answers to the following:
1. What private equity deal structures (e.g., revenue-participation, equity-like interests, athletic facility ownership, debt with covenants, liens/security interests in media rights) has the NCAA observed being considered or pursued by member universities or conferences?
2. What specific contractual terms would the NCAA view as creating “de facto control” or unacceptable conflicts of interest (e.g., board seats, veto rights, step-in rights, approval rights over budgets, approval rights over scheduling, approval rights over realignment, or approval rights over athlete-related policies)?
3. Has the NCAA considered developing enforcement mechanisms to investigate and prevent instances of “de facto control” or unacceptable conflicts of interests at member universities?
4. What risks does the NCAA assess that these arrangements pose for Title IX compliance and non-revenue sports?
5. What disclosure requirements or transparency standards does the NCAA currently impose—or plan to impose—so athletes, students, and the public can understand the financial and governance implications of these agreements?
6. What policies does the NCAA have (or plan to adopt) to require disclosure of beneficial ownership and foreign government–linked participation (including sovereign wealth funds and state-backed entities), and what safeguards would apply where outside investors seek governance rights, revenue participation, or access to sensitive institutional or athlete information?
7. Has the NCAA provided guidance to members regarding tax-exempt, private benefit, or Unrelated Business Income Tax risks associated with private equity participation in athletics revenues, and has the NCAA consulted the Treasury Department on these issues?
In December, Stevens sent a letter to, and later met with, Big Ten Conference Commissioner Tony Petitti about a reported investment deal between the Big Ten and UC Investments, and warned that deals of this nature could open the door for private investment in college sports.
The Members gave President Baker until February 15 to respond. The full letter can be found here.
###