ANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP) — The Big Ten Conference pushed back Tuesday on a claim by a University of Michigan regent that Commissioner Tony Petitti threatened to punish the school if it refuses to support a plan that would clear the way for $2.4 billion in private investment in the league.
Mark Bernstein, chairman of the Michigan board of regents, told The Associated Press this week that Petitti had attempted to “strong-arm” Michigan in a move he said “calls into question his continued leadership of the Big Ten Conference.”
“The Big Ten conference commissioner has threatened the University of Michigan with penalties if we do not approve this deal,” said Bernstein, declining to provide specifics. “Nobody pushes around the University of Michigan — ever.”
The Big Ten disputed the allegation that any school is being forced to back the plan since discussions began last year.
“After receiving interest from third party investors, we formed a working group chaired by then-President (Santa J.) Ono of the University of Michigan to explore and evaluate all options on behalf of our members and the more than 12,000 student athletes in the Big Ten,” said Maryland President Darryll Pines, chair of the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors. “Since we first met in 2024, this has been a collaborative, fair and thorough process that included the University of Michigan. Any other characterization of the work of the COPC and the conference office is inaccurate.
“At Michigan’s direction,” he added, “the conference continues to work with a consultant retained by Michigan to evaluate the transaction.”
Like all major conference, the Big Ten league has been exploring new revenue streams to help its 18 member schools pay the bills in the new era of college athletics. Every school that opted into the House settment can share up to $20.5 million this academic year alone with its athletes, a number set to rise in the years ahead. Some dramatic changes have already taken place on some campuses.
Private equity stakes have been a controversial subject for schools and conferences, with critics saying it would put profit concerns into the mix along with concerns about who is in control. The Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors opened discussions in July with UC Investments, which handles the University of California’s public pension, on the potential to set up a commercial entity, Big Ten Enterprises, to generate money for all 18 schools through 2046.
UC Investments would give each school a portion of the $2.4 billion up front in a tiered distribution system, in exchange for a 10% cut of the Big Ten’s media rights and sponsorships.
Like Michigan, Southern California is against the deal as it currently stands. USC athletic director Jennifer Cohen noted that the deal calls for revenue to be “unevenly distributed to members” and was lukewarm in a letter to boosters last week.
“We greatly value our membership in the Big Ten Conference and understand and respect the larger landscape,” she wrote. “But we also recognize the power of the USC brand is far-reaching, deeply engaging and incredibly valuable, and we will always fight first for what’s best for USC.”
UC Investments Chief Investment Officer Jagdeep Singh Bachher said Monday that conference leadership, including Petitti, has shown “exceptional leadership” and “recent misinformation has distorted some aspects of its effort.” He noted that “unity” from all 18 member schools will be “key to the success of Big Ten Enterprises.”
“We also recognize that some member universities need more time to assess the benefits of their participation,” Bachher wrote, without naming any schools. “UC Investments likewise requires some additional time to complete our due diligence as recent developments unfold and we continue to engage with the conference.”
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., has asked the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation for an analysis of several key issues facing college sports, including how a deal to bring outside funding into athletic departments might impact their tax-exempt status.
“Legitimate questions have been raised about whether it is time to rethink the tax-exempt regime under which college sports currently operates,” Cantwell said, in reprising a theme she raised with Big Ten leaders last month.
The American Council of Trustees and Alumni also expressed reservations about Big Ten schools approving such a deal without input from their boards.
“This is not how responsible governance functions,” the council president, Michael Poliakoff, wrote in an open letter last week.
Bernstein agreed.
“It also raises very important and urgent governance questions regarding leadership of the Big Ten Conference and the way many Big Ten university universities make decisions,” he said. “It’s my well-informed impression that most of the presidents, chancellors and governing boards of Big Ten universities have not fully evaluated this deal. If they did, they would not support it in its current form.”
Regent Sarah Hubbard said the Big Ten has not given the school a deadline to vote on the proposal while another regent, Jordan Acker, said he did not like the idea.
“Having the richest college football conference join arms with private equity is not in my view a positive for the University of Michigan,” Acker said.
Bernstein went a step further, saying the deal is “reckless” and “short-sighted.”
“The process has failed to fully evaluate alternatives that address the very real challenges facing many Big Ten athletic departments,” he said. “We acknowledge that the financial model for most athletic conferences and athletic departments is broken. A bailout from private equity is not the way to fix the systemic problems facing collegiate athletics right now.”
Comments