ANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP) — The University of Michigan governing board publicly declared its opposition to the possibility of giving up a stake of the Big Ten in exchange for $2.4 billion in private investment.
“The University of Michigan Board of Regents met today to discuss the current Big Ten Enterprises proposal. We remain opposed to this deal,” chair Mark Bernstein said Thursday. “Importantly, we are committed to the Big Ten Conference and will continue to explore opportunities that address the pressing financial challenges facing Big Ten athletic departments.”
The conference pushed back earlier in the week after Bernstein claimed that Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti threatened to penalize the school if it refuses to support the proposal.
“Nobody pushes around the University of Michigan — ever,” Bernstein said.
The Big Ten disputed the allegation that any school is being forced to back the plan.
“Since we first met in 2024, this has been a collaborative, fair and thorough process that included the University of Michigan,” said Maryland President Darryll Pines, chair of the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors. “Any other characterization of the work of the COPC and the conference office is inaccurate.”
The Big Ten, like all conferences in college athletics, has been exploring new revenue streams to pay the bills in the new era of college athletics.
Every school that opted into the House settlement 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, including at Kentucky where its athletic department has been converted to a limited-liability holding company.
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 of setting 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.”
“We will always fight first for what’s best for USC,” she wrote.
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.
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.
Comments