By Scott Dochterman, Austin Meek and Ralph D. Russo
With no unanimous verdict in sight, the Big Ten’s 18 presidents and chancellors did not vote during a Thursday meeting on a $2.4 billion plan that would have disbursed more than $100 million to each school’s athletic department and created a subsidiary for the league’s media rights and content.
Not long after Michigan regents publicly denounced the deal, the executive committee of the Big Ten’s Council of Presidents and Chancellors released a statement saying talks within the league would continue.
“Over a year ago, we instructed the conference to undertake a comprehensive process, alongside our members, to innovate for the future and extend the conference’s legacy of academic and athletic excellence,” the statement said. “The Big Ten remains committed to modernizing the operations of our conference, strengthening conference stability, preserving Olympic and women’s sports, and enhancing the student-athlete experience. The conference has provided an option from a non-profit partner — not private equity — that meets those objectives. Ultimately, it is the decision of the Big Ten member institutions’ presidents and chancellors to decide if it’s the right opportunity and those conversations are ongoing.”
Many of the league’s schools favor the plan, which provides for tiered distributions based on the value their athletics programs contribute. The proposed investment comes from UC Investments, the investment fund of the University of California pension system, which is run separately from Big Ten member UCLA and ACC member Cal. But there are concerns from some schools — primarily Michigan and USC — about trading two decades’ worth of future revenues and control over some conference resources for an influx of cash. There’s also reluctance to extend the league’s grant of rights by 10 years, functionally binding its members together through 2046 amid a rapidly changing college sports landscape.
“There are creative ways to address some of this: scheduling, travel, construction, debt management terms,” University of Michigan regent Jordan Acker said Thursday during a board meeting. “Federal legislation is coming. Time is on our side. There should be no rush to leap into this, especially when the future is so unknown.”
Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti appeared Thursday at Columbia University’s Sports Management Conference and addressed the deal publicly for the first time, without giving many details other than to stress it was not private equity.
“We’ve done a lot of work,” he said. “We have a tremendous amount of support for it. We just have to, we have to finish the process.”
The league plans to create a new entity called Big Ten Enterprises, which would oversee its media, sponsorship and branding rights. UC Investments would obtain an equal ownership stake in Big Ten Enterprises to that of each Big Ten member institution plus the league office.
That’s where Acker and Michigan’s other regents have issues. Save for USC and Northwestern, 16 of the Big Ten’s 18 schools are public institutions and thus effectively state agencies. That limits what kind of investment those members can receive and what they can provide as collateral. As a non-profit organization, the Big Ten Conference can remove that burden from the schools. But at Michigan, where there’s a growing mistrust of the Big Ten office, financial autonomy within the school and conference remains paramount.
“When selling our equity, enough is enough,” Acker said during the meeting. “The Big Ten has expanded four times, adding seven schools in the last 14 years. On each of these occasions, we were told that the new revenue would be enough to cover soaring expenses. We were told we had to do this: a football title game, more basic cable fees, adding Los Angeles, adding a West Coast wing. I’m glad these institutions are part of the league. I really am. However, here we are trying to solve the same old problem with a new, and this time, rushed solution.
“Now we have to do this deal giving away 10 percent of future media revenue for the next 21 years, even though no one knows what college athletics or media will look like. The ACC once thought a long-term deal was a good idea. Within a few years, they were suing each other.”
These schools have billions of reasons to remain interested in a cash infusion. Collectively, the 16 Big Ten public institutions reported more than $2.32 billion in athletic debt, according to 2024 fiscal year financial statements obtained by The Athletic. Those 16 programs combined to spend $281 million on debt service in fiscal year 2024 alone. Half of the schools reported more expenses than revenues.
UCLA’s athletic department, which did not list any debt or debt service in fiscal 2024, has spent $200 million more than it has brought in over the last five fiscal years. Rutgers’ losses exceeded $41 million, and the Scarlet Knights received nearly $29 million in direct revenue from either the university, the state or student fees.
Despite generating a league-high $255 million in fiscal 2024, Ohio State reported $37 million more in expenses than revenues. Ohio State, with only $150.8 million in athletic endowments, also owes nearly $287 million in athletic debt. It’s not alone.
Many of the institutions began nine-figure facilities projects before the House v. NCAA settlement allowed athletic departments to share up to $20.5 million with athletes this year. Penn State and Northwestern have major stadium renovations in progress costing between $700 million and $1 billion. Illinois reported the most debt service of any Big Ten athletic department, at $312.5 million. Maryland and Rutgers are still repaying the league through 2027 after borrowing from their future earnings as unvested members. Oregon and Washington receive only half-shares from Big Ten coffers through 2030.
“Who would have thought that the Big Ten Conference would need a bailout like this? And make no mistake, that’s exactly what this is … a very big payday loan,” Michigan regent Mark Bernstein said.
“Until these soaring expenses are addressed, throwing money at short-term problems is akin to opening another credit card,” Acker said.
Acker cited financial experts, including on Michigan’s board, who were “unequivocal” in opposing the deal. As de facto state agencies, most institutions have high credit ratings and can borrow from lending institutions at low interest rates.
“They say we can do it more efficiently without selling assets,” Acker said. “Collectively, as institutions, we are very strong.”
“This is all about providing resources, making it sustainable,” Petitti said. “Every institution in the Big Ten is slightly different in terms of what their current needs are. And our job is find the best path (for) all. And I think another important part is maintain that connection the Big Ten has to each other. The conference has been around since 1896.”