The future of Big Ten Enterprises remains unclear after months of rumor, innuendo and strongly worded public statements.
The prospective commercial endeavor, designed to handle all conference media rights and sponsorship deals, would be a 20-year, $2.4 billion partnership with UC Investments, a firm tied to the pension fund of the University of California.
All 18 conference member schools and two affiliates would benefit financially from the arrangement, although a tiered structure would determine how the $2.4 billion is divvied up. While most schools have voiced support for the proposal, both the University of Michigan and the University of Southern California recently stated strong opposition, leading UC Investments to hold off on a vote to affirm Big Ten Enterprises, a vote that was purported to have come as early as this week.
If this sounds like a lot, that’s because it is – and none of it is clear at this point.
Some background
In January, Sportico first reported that the Big Ten had hired the investment bank Evercore as a financial consultant, and that Evercore was advising the conference to explore partnerships with private equity firms to expand revenue opportunities involving events and sponsorships.
This move was in anticipation of the House vs. NCAA ruling, which in June opened the door for individual schools to share as much as $20.5 million in revenues with student-athletes in 2025-26.
In October, ESPN reported that the Big Ten was considering a “private capital deal” that would bring as much as $2 billion to the conference and ensure the independence and stability of the Big Ten by extending its grant of rights until 2046.
In theory, the new venture would handle the business end of media rights and similar revenue streams while allowing the Big Ten to retain all control of its brand, including control of Big Ten board seats. According to ESPN, the new enterprise would have 20 “equity shares,” including one for each member school, one for the conference itself and one for the financial investor, which we now know is UC Investments.
For its part in the business, UC Investments would receive a 10 percent stake in Big Ten Enterprises.
Recent opposition
The University of Southern California has been hesitant to sign on, leading some to speculate that USC doesn’t particularly like the proposed deal.
In her Nov. 14 “State of Troy” newsletter, USC Athletic Director Jen Cohen cited fiduciary responsibilities and a desire for due diligence regarding USC’s commitment to Big Ten Enterprises. Cohen wrote, “We greatly value our membership in the Big Ten Conference and understand and respect the larger landscape, 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.”
The University of Michigan’s Board of Regents has been much more direct in its opposition to the proposed deal. At a Board of Regents meeting Oct. 16, regent Jordan Acker criticized the deal as inadequate in the face of rising operating costs. “You can’t borrow your way out of a spending problem,” said Acker. “And until these soaring expenses are addressed, throwing [this solution at] short term problems is akin to opening another credit card.”
During the same meeting, Board chair Mark Bernstein likened the deal to a “payday loan” and added that “the contrived urgency” of the deal belied transparency. “The conference needs to slow down and consider better ways to address the very real problems facing some Big Ten universities and their athletic departments,” said Bernstein.
Despite Michigan’s overt opposition, the Big Ten appeared willing to move ahead with a vote, according to a Nov. 9 Yahoo!Sports story that cited anonymous sources. That same story quoted a Big Ten spokesperson who insisted that “no such vote” was scheduled.
In a Nov. 17 interview on SiriusSX Radio, Acker implied that Michigan would consider leaving the Big Ten if the conference votes to proceed over Michigan’s objections. Later that day, ESPN reported that UC Investments issued a statement that appeared to indicate a reluctance to move forward until all 18 member schools are on board.
The following day, the Associated press ran a story in which Bernstein claimed that the Big Ten was attempting to coerce Michigan and that Pettiti had “threatened the University of Michigan with penalties” for noncompliance. Said Bernstein, “Nobody pushes around the University of Michigan – ever.”
Maryland President Darryll Pines, chair of the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors, said that framing discussions surrounding Big Ten Enterprises as anything but collaborative “is inaccurate.”
During a meeting Nov. 20, Bernstein read a statement on behalf of the Board of Regents that read, in part, that university remains “opposed to this deal.” The statement reiterated Michigan’s commitment to the Big Ten conference.
Perhaps the public opposition and the thought of losing the University of Michigan is giving other member institutions reason to pause. In a Nov. 22 USA Today story, Ohio State University president Ted Carter told the Columbus Dispatch that OSU has “been assessing the proposal” and hasn’t come to a “final decision.”
Even elected officials have weighed in on the deal. U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (Wash.) issued a statement Oct. 10 about a letter she’d sent to Big Ten presidents and chancellors in which she warned that working with private equities “may be counter to” the public institutions’ academic goals in addition to creating issues regarding tax-exempt status for some assets.
On Nov. 25, Congresswoman Haley Maria Stevens (Mich.) sent a letter to Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti in which she cautioned against acting hastily. “As policymakers,” wrote Stevens, “we have a responsibility to ensure that the integrity of college sports, the Big Ten, and its member universities is preserved for future generations, not sacrificed for short-term financial gain.”
B1G expansion?
One of the most frustrating things for Big Ten hockey fans is how the expansion of the conference itself hasn’t resulted in new B1G Hockey teams.
With the addition of Maryland and Rutgers in 2014, the Big Ten increased its total number of membership institutions to 14. In 2024, the Big Ten added USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington, making the conference an 18-team, coast-to-coast league.
With so many nationally recognized programs and such a large geographic footprint, the Big Ten is the undisputed money champ among all NCAA conferences, reporting $928 million in revenue in 2024.
This past summer, Maryland Athletic Director Jim Smith appeared to fuel rumors of a 20-team Big Ten conference in the not-so-distant future, although he didn’t stipulate who may be added to the conference’s collective roster.
Both Big Ten expansion and the House vs. NCAA ruling have shown us that more revenue for the Big Ten doesn’t necessarily translate into more Big Ten hockey. It’s up to individual member schools to determine how to use the revenues they’re allotted.