Is Private Investment on the Way Into College Sports or Getting Banned?

Last Updated on October 11, 2025

The Big Ten is reportedly exploring a multi-billion-dollar deal with private investors. At the same time, new federal legislation, the Protect College Sports from Private Equity and Foreign Influence Act, aims to stop exactly that.

Here’s what’s happening, why it matters, and what’s at stake for college athletics.

Why the Big Ten Wants Private Equity

After the House settlement allowing schools to share revenue directly with athletes, athletic departments are scrambling to find new money. Many schools already rely heavily on donor support and media rights revenue. That’s where private equity comes in.

Private equity firms, and other institutional investors, invest money in exchange for a share of profits. In this case, firms could provide upfront capital in return for a cut of future revenue from media rights, sponsorships, or licensing.

Reports suggest the Big Ten has considered forming a new business entity, “Big Ten Enterprises,” to handle commercial assets. The league would keep control over sports governance, while investors would share in future profits.

In theory, that capital infusion could fund revenue sharing with athletes, facility upgrades, and conference-wide marketing or tech investments.

But the idea has sparked immediate concern from lawmakers, faculty, and even some university presidents.

Lawmakers Are Stepping In

On October 9, Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-Wash.) introduced the PROTECT Act, which would ban colleges and athletic conferences from selling ownership or control stakes to private equity, hedge funds, or foreign investment groups.

The bill specifically prohibits agreements that:

• Give investors ownership or veto rights over athletic programs
• Include revenue-sharing or profit guarantees
• Offer “security interests” (like collateral rights) tied to college athletics

The bill’s authors say these deals could undermine the educational mission of universities. In their words, they “risk extracting wealth from publicly supported institutions and their students—undermining transparency, accountability, and the public purposes for which those institutions exist.”

If passed, schools and conferences would have 24 months to unwind any prohibited deals. Institutions would also have to certify annually that they’re in compliance.

A day later, Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) warned that bringing in profit-driven investors could imperil universities’ tax-exempt status. She cautioned that once an outside entity holds a stake in media revenues, those revenues may no longer be viewed as “substantially related” to a school’s educational mission. If revenues get recast as commercial profits, the IRS or Congress could challenge their tax treatment.

Cantwell also questioned whether all university trustees and regents had been fully briefed on the deal, suggesting potential governance and transparency issues.

Why This Matters

This debate cuts to the heart of what college sports is becoming.

For decades, universities and conferences have operated within a nonprofit model. But with athlete revenue-sharing now on the horizon, schools need to compete more like professional franchises. The question is whether they can do that without turning into them.

Private equity could help athletic departments handle the new financial pressure, but at what cost?

The Potential Benefits of Private Equity in College Sports

• Access to Capital: The House settlement adds tens of millions in annual expenses per school. Many athletic departments can’t cover that without new revenue. Private equity could provide a lifeline.
• Business Expertise: Private investors could bring professional sports experience and operational efficiency. They’ve already invested heavily in European soccer clubs, Formula 1, and U.S. leagues like the NBA and MLS.
• Competitive Stability: For the Big Ten, pooling commercial assets under one umbrella could prevent internal gaps between wealthier and smaller programs. That’s especially appealing as conference expansion and athlete pay create growing disparities.

How Private Investment Would Work in the Big Ten

According to multiple reports, the Big Ten’s plan centers on creating a new commercial arm called Big Ten Enterprises. This new entity would manage and hold all of the league’s media rights, sponsorship deals, and other commercial contracts — essentially, the most valuable assets in college athletics.

Ownership in Big Ten Enterprises would be divided among the conference’s 18 member schools, the Big Ten Conference office, and an outside capital investment group tied to the University of California pension system.

While the UC pension fund is not a private equity firm, its role has still drawn attention because it represents a significant infusion of outside money into college sports. The UC fund’s proposal reportedly offered a higher valuation than competing bids from private equity groups, making it more attractive to Big Ten leaders and their schools.

Under the current framework, each Big Ten university would receive a payout in at least the nine-figure range, according to ESPN. Larger brands are expected to get slightly more in a tiered distribution structure, but those differences would likely be small (less than a single percentage point between the top and bottom programs).

The conference is still finalizing equity terms, and Big Ten leadership has not yet approved the deal. But if it moves forward, Big Ten Enterprises would mark a fundamental shift in how college sports conferences operate, transforming from traditional revenue-sharing collectives into joint ventures with outside investors.

The Risks for College Sports with Private Equity

While the money might sound appealing, critics say private equity, or other types of private investment, could bring long-term consequences college sports isn’t ready for.

• Misaligned Incentives: Private equity firms expect returns—typically 15–20% annually. That pressure could push conferences to prioritize short-term profits over academics, Olympic sports, or Title IX compliance. The McGuireWoods analysis of the PROTECT Act explicitly warned that these deals “create pressure to maximize short-term cash flows at the expense of educational and Title IX obligations.”
• Mission Creep: Once investors have a financial stake, their influence can expand quickly. They might push for higher ticket prices, more commercial breaks, or reduced support for non-revenue sports. Even “minority” ownership can bring major leverage if tied to revenue performance.
• Loss of Institutional Control: Even if schools retain voting power, outside investors often negotiate veto rights or oversight committees. That could limit how universities manage broadcasting, scheduling, or licensing. It blurs the line between university governance and private business.
• Tax-Exempt Risks: Public universities enjoy tax benefits because they serve educational purposes. If private capital gains a profit stake, the IRS—or Congress—could challenge whether those operations still qualify as nonprofit.
• Public Backlash: Many alumni and fans already worry that college sports have become too commercial. “Selling off” a portion of the conference to private investors could deepen that perception and alienate supporters.

A University of Michigan regent Jordan Acker has already spoken out against the idea.

“Selling off Michigan’s precious public university assets would betray our responsibility to students and taxpayers,” Acker wrote. “I will firmly oppose any such effort — and I hope colleagues at (Michigan State) and Ohio State will stand me with me as well.”

What to Watch From Here

Even if the PROTECT Act doesn’t pass, the conversation has already shifted. Universities, lawmakers, and fans are asking deeper questions. Who should own the value created by college sports—schools, athletes, or investors? And what happens when profit motives start influencing academic institutions?

For now, the Big Ten appears to be moving cautiously. Some reports suggest that member schools remain divided, and no formal deal has been approved. But the fact that these conversations are happening at all shows how much the House settlement has upended the college sports model.

• Conference Votes: Any private equity deal would require approval from all Big Ten member schools. Expect some to resist.
• Legislative Movement: The PROTECT Act will likely face hearings and debate. Even without passage, it could slow or reshape future deals.
• Public Pressure: Fans and faculty may weigh in as details emerge. If the narrative becomes “college sports are being sold,” conferences could rethink their approach.
• Copycat Interest: If the Big Ten successfully brings in capital, expect other leagues to explore similar models unless Congress shuts the door.

The Big Ten’s private equity talks highlight a growing reality: college sports is now a billion-dollar business looking for billion-dollar solutions.

But as lawmakers warn, inviting Wall Street into the locker room might change more than just the balance sheet. It could redefine who really owns college athletics.

For fans, athletes, and administrators alike, the next year could determine whether college sports remains an extension of higher education or becomes the next professional league with school logos.