The specter of private equity money has loomed as a possibility for funding college athletics programs for a while now.

Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark floated the possibility of private equity entering the college sports world last summer and he was only one of multiple conference commissioners to do.

Earlier this year, the Big Ten was reported by Sportico to have taken “preliminary bids from private equity firms.”

Special Collector’s Issue: “1984: The Year BYU was Second to None”

Get an inclusive look inside BYU Football’s 1984 National Championship season.

The concept of hedge funds getting involved in college athletics has seemed to be an eventuality, the only question being when it would happen.

Wrote Forbes contributor Joe Moglia in April, “The latest shockwave to hit college football may come from private equity. As billions of dollars in TV revenue have flooded into Power Four football and top players are able to bring in six- and seven-figure name, image, likeness (NIL) deals, it’s impossible to ignore the fact that college football is a business. Big business.

“These are professional student-athletes, and the teams are major sports franchises,” he continued. “But, at the same time, it’s an industry that is being heavily disrupted. In other words, college football is a ripe hunting ground for hedge funds and private equity.”

With the approval of the House settlement, part of which allows schools to pay upward of $20.5 million to student-athletes directly, athletic departments are in need of an influx of funds, and private equity has plenty of them. So it should be of little surprise that private equity has indeed found its way into college athletics.

Sports Business Journal reported early Monday morning that Elevate, a “global agency network” that supports “over 1,000 ambitious brands across sports, entertainment, consumer products, and retail,” has created a $500 million initiative to invest in college sports, backed by private equity firm Velocity Capital Management and the Texas Permanent School Fund.

The purpose of the initiative? To “provide a new funding source for collegiate athletics programs pursuing capital-intensive projects like facility upgrades and renovations,” write Ben Portnoy and Chris Smith.

Per SBJ, Elevate has already come to terms to fund two unnamed Power Four conference programs, with the expectation to come to terms with three to six additional programs before the 2025 season begins in late August.

What’s more, the plan is for Elevate to become a “multi-billion-dollar platform” that invests across college sports in the long term.

Why is private equity interested in college athletics?

The simple answer to this question is the potential for profit.

College athletics is a multibillion-dollar industry that is ever growing.

Per ESPN, the NCAA generated nearly $1.3 billion in revenue in 2022-23, which was up from $1.14 billion the previous year. Most of that revenue (close to 70%) comes from the men’s NCAA Tournament.

College football, meanwhile, brings in an inordinate amount of money to programs.

At the top, as of last year, according to USA Today, programs like Ohio State, Texas, Alabama, Michigan and Georgia all had revenues exceeding $200 million. Of course, expenses were nearly as high, which is where private equity comes in.

The idea is that private equity firms can make athletic departments even more profitable. One way would be by eliminating waste. Multimillion-dollar coaches’ salaries and buyouts have been mentioned as an area rife for change.

“No one with any business sense would allow a major executive to lose repeatedly and then walk away with a multi-million dollar bonus buyout, but this is something that happens regularly in Power Four football. Agents run circles around most athletic directors when it comes to things as basic as employment contracts,” Moglia writes.

Private equity could also get involved “by directly investing in athletic departments, investing in the fan experience, both in and outside of the stadium, or through adding revenue streams outside of the existing network,” Alfie Crooks wrote for Buyout Insider, the idea being that college athletics haven’t been marketed as well as they could be by conferences and the NCAA.

“College athletics remains a relatively untapped market. Its combination of passionate fan bases, strong brand loyalty and long-term income potential makes it an appealing target for investment,” Brian Anderson writes for Sports Business Journal.

There is not an expectation — yet, anyway — that private equity could purchase ownership stakes in college athletic departments/programs, but the potential for that exists in the long run.

Right now, private equity would likely “favor the private credit model because they can better control the exact monetary amount paid out each year,” Bryan Shapiro writes for Duane Morris Sports Law.

Schools, on the other hand, would likely prefer a “traditional private equity model because it allocates risk between the athletic department and investors equally — i.e., if the program increases in value, both entities are rewarded, and on the flip side, if the program decreases in value, the school is not required to pay a specific monetary amount to the investors, which would greatly injure the program and school overall,” Shapiro writes.

What could be the impact of private equity in college sports?

This question has been posed many times over the last few years and various attempts have been made to answer it.

The simplest answer is that an immediate influx of money to departments and programs that otherwise wouldn’t have access to those funds could bring rapid parity to college sports, football especially.

Think lower-tier Power conference schools that rarely, if ever, have been in contention at the top of their leagues legitimately competing alongside the likes of Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan and Oregon.

It has already started to happen a bit with the rise of NIL — who can forget Vanderbilt’s 2024 season, during which the Commodores upset the Crimson Tide? — but private equity investment could lead to even more parity.

There is a potential downside, though, and that is the further movement of college athletics away from what it has been for 100-plus years.

Private equity will likely prioritize profits first and foremost and that could lead to some serious changes.

“In all likelihood, the first university to sign a major deal will likely be a smaller Power Four football program,” Moglia writes. “While the biggest programs will have no problem paying players and putting together big NIL packages, smaller schools will likely struggle to be competitive. This is the opening that a firm needs. They’ll approach one of these smaller programs with an offer of $150 million (or more) for 51% of the say in how they run their football program.

“For an AD with little business experience trying to put together a winning program, this will look like a good deal,” he continued. “Cash up front to build a team and a promise from the guys in suits to juice revenue in the future. The problem, of course, is that as soon as this deal is done, revenue growth will become the only priority. The investors won’t balk at putting in their own athletics director and putting profits ahead of players, education, fans and the institution. That’s a horrible, horrible long-term decision for the university, but it’s entirely plausible.”

In a lot of ways, what private equity and college athletics will look like together is as uncertain as the future of college sports in general. And it could be years before any real repercussions are felt from an influx of private equity money into college athletics.

After a few years of speculation that private equity would get involved in college sports, it appears it is now a reality.

Michael Cohen

College Football and College Basketball Writer

Three days after the approved multibillion-dollar legal settlement forever changed the landscape of collegiate athletics, ushering in a bold new world of revenue sharing between schools and athletes, a handful of the industry’s power brokers discussed the seismic paradigm shift on a virtual news conference.

And while they were short on details regarding the implementation and enforcement of new NIL rules overseen by the College Sports Commission, a freshly formed regulatory body created in response to the House v. NCAA lawsuit, all five conference commissioners spoke enthusiastically about the redirected path of collegiate athletics toward modernization and what they hope will be a much-needed dose of industry-wide stability. 

“The decision on Friday is a significant step forward toward building long-term stability for college sports while protecting the system from bad actors seeking to exploit confusion and uncertainty,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said. “We know this transition will not be without challenges, and growing pains can be expected. Any time you go through change at this level, a historic and monumental level, you can expect both challenges, growing pains, along with the opportunities that have now been introduced.”

Sankey was joined on the Zoom call by fellow commissioners Tony Petitti (Big Ten), Brett Yormark (Big 12), Jim Phillips (ACC) and Teresa Gould (Pac-12) for a conversation with reporters about the next steps following judge Claudia Wilken’s approval of the deal late on Friday evening. The settlement, which now allows schools to pay players directly, goes into effect on July 1. 

Here’s a breakdown of what was said and some additional context to each question asked:

On whether conferences will provide guidance to member institutions regarding how much money should be distributed to specific sports: 

Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti watches from the sideline during the Ohio State vs. Notre Dame College Football Playoff National Championship game. (Photo by Joe Robbins/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)

Context: Ever since the settlement’s broad strokes were first revealed, conversations surrounding payout strategies and potential disbursement requirements have been popular topics of conversation. Would schools be required to evenly distribute their respective revenue-share pies among all sports, even if football and men’s basketball serve as the primary moneymakers for most athletic departments? Would Title IX implications mandate an equal split between men’s and women’s sports? And if the answers to both the aforementioned questions are “no,” which seems to be the case thus far — though additional litigation is almost certainly forthcoming on those fronts — how drastically will the scale tilt toward football?

Without any legislative guidance for the schools, early reports have suggested that most athletic departments will allocate approximately 75% of the annual $20.5 million cap to football, 15% to men’s basketball, 5% to women’s basketball and 5% to all other sports. The commissioners were asked on Monday if their respective conferences plan to implement any league-wide mandates on the percentages distributed to each sport. 

Jim Phillips, ACC: “Jurisdiction will be local campus decisions. We’ve talked a little bit about individual sports, but we certainly haven’t set exact percentages on any of our sports just yet. I think everyone has seen the commitment to football and men’s and women’s basketball, but I know for all five of us, no one is forgetting about the Olympic sports and continuing to make sure that we invest at a high level for all of our sports.”

Tony Petitti, Big Ten: “In the Big Ten, we’re focused on local decision-making. We’ve had numerous conversations about the way to address the question you’re raising and the decision was made fairly early on that we’d be in a local decision-making [situation]. So that’s where we are, giving our institutions discretion. And they want that discretion. That was the feedback from our athletics directors.”

Greg Sankey, SEC: “We took a deep look as a league in February, put that on hold, and so [we] do not have a conference-level directive on percent allocations by sport.”

Brett Yormark, Big 12: “It is a campus decision. We’ve discussed it directionally, but it is a campus decision.”

Teresa Gould, Pac-12: “I think the Pac-12 is uniquely situated because we have the opportunity with all the changing landscape around us to actually launch a brand-new league. So, while there certainly will be institutional autonomy related to strategy around revenue sharing, we are having quite a bit of conversation about what makes sense in terms of the best overall interests of the conference, and how that positions us to compete at the highest level.”

On the selection of Bryan Seeley to become CEO of the College Sports Commission:

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey talks with LSU football head coach Brian Kelly before the Kinder’s Texas Bowl. (Photo by Gus Stark/LSU/University Images via Getty Images)

Context: Within a few hours of the settlement’s approval on Friday night, the College Sports Commission announced Bryan Seeley as the organization’s first CEO. Seeley, 46, will join the organization after serving as executive vice president, legal & operations for Major League Baseball, where he “oversaw investigations into a wide range of issues including circumvention of international compensation caps and developed and enforced rules in evolving policy areas such as legalized sports betting,” according to a press release. He worked previously as an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., for eight years. 

As the leader of this new enforcement arm, Seeley is tasked with building out “the organization’s investigative and enforcement teams and [overseeing] all of its ongoing operations and stakeholder relationships.” This includes the enforcement of new rules surrounding revenue sharing and third-party NIL deals, the ramifications of which are certain to make Seeley one of the most powerful figures in collegiate athletics. 

Greg Sankey, SEC: “We did want an individual — whoever that may be — with significant experience working in the areas that would be on the agenda from Day 1. So you think about rules implementation, rules development, adjustments, issues around arbitration that are built into the settlement terms. … We had a broad search effort, engaged a search firm, and that process went through a round of Zoom interviews and then a set of in-person interviews, and Bryan rose to the top. I was impressed with his commitment of time and understanding and preparing for what’s in front of us, not to mention the background work he’s done with his ability to talk about where there are issues that are parallel to his experience, or where there may be intersections, or where there may be points of divergence that will be informed by his experience but will require some more work on all of our parts.”

Tony Petitti, Big Ten: “To have league experience was a big part of this — at least from the perspective of the Big Ten — to have somebody who worked in a league. And the reason why I feel strongly about that is part of what we do is manage a lot of constituents. And in Bryan’s role [in MLB], you’re dealing with 30 clubs in very competitive areas that he’s involved in and making decisions. And that’s very similar to what he’ll have to do in this role. The decisions that get made by this enforcement entity ultimately will have competitive outcomes. So Bryan has experience of managing [a group that is] not as large as what you see in the college space, but a very significant space. And I think that’s experience that made his candidacy extremely unique.”

Brett Yormark, Big 12: “I would just add that it was unanimous amongst the commissioners that he was the right person at the right time for this role. And for me, he was very passionate about this opportunity. You want people not to run away from a situation but to run to a situation. He ran here. And he’s very passionate to make a difference and to course-correct what’s been going on in the industry.”

On the potential punishments for programs choosing to move forward with NIL deals that get rejected by NIL Go: 

Context: One of the only unassailable truths facing college athletics as it barreled toward the revenue-sharing era was that any measures approved by Wilken would eventually be skirted by coaches and programs desperate for a competitive advantage. Speculation about how and when teams could “circumvent the cap,” a phrase that became quite popular in recent months, suddenly dominated stories that were rife with anonymous sources brainstorming how institutions could put more than $20.5 million in athletes’ pockets. Prevailing wisdom suggested that the most well-funded football rosters, for instance, would cost far more to assemble and maintain than just a hefty chunk of the annual cap allowance. 

One way to funnel additional money toward athletes will be through traditional NIL deals, the likes of which have existed for several years. Moving forward, financial agreements reached between athletes and third parties won’t count toward an athletic department’s annual cap, though any deal greater than $600 is now subject to approval by NIL Go, an online clearinghouse within the College Sports Commission. All outside NIL deals will be vetted by NIL Go for legitimate business purposes in an effort to reduce blatant recruiting inducements.  

Jim Phillips, ACC: “We’re in the process of developing some of those rules and structure, overall implementation of that. Now that we have Bryan [Seeley] on board, I think we’ll be able to move a little bit quicker. But we want to get this right. And it’s one of the areas that, again, until you have somebody leading the College Sports Commission, it’s difficult to get together with that individual and to start some of that framework that may be in place. But nothing to date, right now, that we’re ready to come forward with [as far as punishments]. I think all of us right now have some ideas. We’ve had numerous conversations about that. But this ultimately will be under Bryan’s purview and he needs to be an active participant, and will be, in the creation of what these new rules and boundaries are.”

On the skepticism from certain coaches and administrators that the new rules can actually be enforced by Bryan Seeley and the College Sports Commission: 

Vanderbilt QB Diego Pavia was granted an injunction that allowed him to pursue another year of eligibility. (Photo by Avery Watson/Vanderbilt University/University Images via Getty Images)

Context: Given the number of highly publicized, highly influential court rulings that have gone against the NCAA in recent years — from the original passage of NIL legislation in 2021, to the rewriting of multi-time transfer rules in 2024, to the junior college eligibility challenges mounted earlier this year — many skeptics find it farfetched that a new regulatory body, like the College Sports Commission, will fare much better in the world of enforcement than its predecessor. If the legal precedent driving most of these lawsuits is the restriction of fair trade, meaning any potential infringements on an athlete’s earning power that could be construed as violations of the Sherman Act, then why would new measures established in the revenue-sharing era hold up any better in court than the old ones?

Building on that premise, there are scores of coaches, administrators, agents, lawyers and legal experts who harbor reservations about what the College Sports Commission can reasonably accomplish in an environment that, to some, is beginning to resemble the plugging of a large-scale dam with ever-weakening pieces of duct tape. The conference commissioners were asked how they’re selling the importance of following these new rules to their constituents. 

Brett Yormark, Big 12: “I addressed that with our coaches last week, and I often say it’s ‘progress over perfection.’ There will be challenges that we’ll deal with. But over time, we’ll meet those challenges and we’ll address them appropriately. But I am very confident in Bryan, Deloitte, LBi Software, the new model that’s in place, that we have a bright future in collegiate athletics. I’ll also say that our schools want rules, and we’re providing rules, and we’ll be governed by those rules. And if you break those rules, the ramifications will be punitive.”

Jim Phillips, ACC: “What’s not debatable is that this new model does bring stability and fairness to student-athletes and college sports. And we’ve been in an unregulated environment with no rules and no enforcement. It has paralyzed the NCAA in Indianapolis, and we’re responsible for certainly some of that. We’re now going to have a foundation and structure of laying out those rules. The new structure provides our student-athletes with more opportunities and benefits than ever before. And it isn’t going to be perfect. But we’re committed to progress: learning, adapting, strengthening the model to support and protect college sports, [which is] like nothing else as an American tradition. There’s no question for any of us, the five of us, that we’re in a much better place than we were 48 hours ago, and certainly over the last several years.”

Greg Sankey, SEC: “I’ve asked at every level — and I listed those in my opening presentation: our university presidents and chancellors, our athletics directors, our head coaches — ‘If you want an unregulated, open system, just raise your hand and let me know.’ And universally, the answer is, ‘No. We want guardrails. We want structure.’ Those individuals don’t have the luxury to just say that in meeting rooms. Period. They don’t have the luxury to just be anonymous sources. They have a responsibility to make what they’ve sought and what they’ve asked for, to make it work.”

On the role Congress might play in stabilizing college athletics: 

Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark and SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey talk prior to Game 1 of the Women’s College World Series championship series. (Photo by Ian Maule/Getty Images)

Context: Hovering over the widespread enforcement difficulties endured by the NCAA — many of which might now be transferred to the College Sports Commission — is the lingering desire for assistance from Congress that, in the form of a bill, would finally usher in the uniformity many across the business are craving. Ever since the advent of NIL, the proliferation of new and contrasting state laws pertaining to governance, implementation and legality have pockmarked a playing field misconstrued as even. It was only last month when Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed into law a piece of athlete-friendly NIL legislation that undercut provisions outlined in the forthcoming House settlement by declaring such limitations on athlete compensation invalid, clearing the way for institutions in his state to ignore things like the salary cap and third-party NIL rules. 

With each state comes the possibility of another interpretation, the sheer volume of which could unspool a web of complications, confusion and legal challenges. The commissioners were equal parts unanimous and optimistic surrounding potential Congressional oversight in the near future that would create a single set of rules by which all schools must abide. 

Greg Sankey, SEC: “I think we’ve been clear over time: We need an effort to preempt state laws. Congress exists to set national standards, and we’re not going to have Final Fours and College Football Playoffs and College World Series with 50 different standards. So that’s the starting point. I think with what’s been introduced here, the benefits to student-athletes, the codification of at least the settlement terms, will be enormously healthy. I’ll add [another] piece: There are a lot of people running around representing themselves as NIL this or representatives for that or agents with air quotes. There’s not a lot of protection for young people. Our universities do a good job providing the services I listed earlier in providing support and protections for young people. But you don’t have those more broadly.

“I think this is a non-partisan issue, candidly. I don’t think this is about drawing lines between Democrats and Republicans or the House and Senate. I think this is an opportunity for our governmental leaders, our political leaders, to come together around solutions to support or Olympic development program, to support college football and every one of our sports that flows off of that — including those that are labeled as non-revenue sports — to provide additional support for women’s sports like they’ve been doing through scholarship and other economic opportunities. I think those can be really healthy and can benefit from Congressional engagement.”

Tony Petitti, Big Ten: “Over a year ago, when the conferences all voted to approve the settlement and go through the process to take it to the judge, that was a big moment. And I think that’s changed the tone down in [Congress] because we’ve shown that we’re willing to make significant change and modernize our system. We’re not just asking for something, we’re actually showing that we are willing to have significant change.”

Brett Yormark, Big 12: “I don’t know if there’s an exact timeline [for Congressional assistance], but there’s a sense of urgency, for sure, so that Congress helps to support the settlement. One thing that I have realized based on my trips to The Hill is that everyone there is passionate about collegiate athletics. They have a vested interest. And they want to do the right thing to help us move this forward. I don’t think we have to sell them on the topic. We just have to land in the right place that works for both parties on The Hill. And I think we’re getting closer.”

Michael Cohen covers college football and college basketball for FOX Sports. Follow him at @Michael_Cohen13.

Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily!

FOLLOW Follow your favorites to personalize your FOX Sports experience

College Football

Get more from College Football Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more

Pitt’s preferred NIL collective over the past few years released a statement on Monday, days after the House Vs. NCAA settlement news.

“The settlement in House v. NCAA represents a landmark moment in the continued evolution of college athletics. After years of uncertainty, we’re encouraged to see much-needed structure and definition begin to take shape in the NIL and student-athlete compensation landscape. We commend the University of Pittsburgh’s athletic department for its steady leadership and commitment to student-athletes throughout this period of change. Pitt has remained focused on doing things the right way — by putting student-athletes first and setting a standard for what responsible and forward-thinking progress can look like.”

PSN has been covering Alliance 412 for years, since its inception. Alliance 412 was founded by Pitt graduate Chris Bickell, who donated $20 million to Pitt athletics in September 2021, with the mission to, “connect University of Pittsburgh student-athletes, local and national companies, charitable organizations, and the community to create lasting and sustainable relationships that impact and benefit all.”

Bickell, along with Jeff Goldberg, John Pelusi, Doug Whaley, and others, have led Alliance 412 through the turbulent era of college athletics seen in the past few years. Now, with the statement put out by the collective, it appears they are still striving to help out in the coming era.

A message to Panther Nation about the House settlement pic.twitter.com/pAbz6srptq

— Alliance 412 (@Alliance_412) June 9, 2025

“At Alliance 412, our mission has never been solely about providing financial support. We’re here to help Pitt student-athletes grow as individuals — by building their brands, making smart financial decisions, and developing tools for success well beyond their playing days,” the release continued. “As this new model emerges, we remain fully committed to empowering athletes to maximize their opportunities — especially through initiatives that fall outside the scope of university-directed compensation. This is a new era, and one we welcome. One in which Alliance 412 will continue to serve as a trusted partner to the University, our donors, and — most importantly — our student athletes.”

Cast against their brown and beige office backdrops, the four horsemen of the settlement spoke as one.

Tony Petitti, Jim Phillips, Greg Sankey and Brett Yormark — commissioners of the conferences that control major college sports — conducted a remote news conference Monday morning to share their views on the momentous House v. NCAA settlement and what’s next for the industry.

They were joined on the Zoom call by Teresa Gould, commissioner of the Pac-12, which was a named defendant in the lawsuit (along with the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and NCAA) and therefore a participant in constructing the post-settlement world order.

Together, the quintet reiterated the need for congressional help to codify rules and provide antitrust protection in order to end the barrage of legal challenges to the NCAA.

They explained that the distribution of $20.5 million to athletes starting July 1 won’t be determined at the conference level. How much to allocate to football, men’s basketball and the Olympic sports will be a campus decision.

And they acknowledged the post-settlement world is evolving. They don’t have all the systems and personnel in place to immediately clean up what Phillips (ACC) called “an unregulated environment with no rules and no enforcement.” They believe answers, and solutions, will come with time.

But is there any reason to believe cheating will disappear? That pay-for-play, which has taken so many forms over the decades, will be expunged from the system? That “bad actors,” as Sankey (SEC) described them, will be banished forever?

If effort and determination count, the clean-up effort could succeed.

“It’s progress over perfection,” Yormark (Big 12) explained. “There will be challenges. But we’re very confident.

“Our schools want rules. We’re providing rules, and we will be governed by those rules. And if you break those rules, the ramifications will be punitive.”

As part of the settlement, the power conferences created the College Sports Commission, with a chief executive, Bryan Seeley, a former lead investigator for Major League Baseball, and a singular mission: Ensure NIL deals are legitimate.

For the past four years, they have been anything but.

Remember the old-fashioned cheating, when bags o’ cash were given to recruits and their handlers in exchange for signatures on letters of intent? The moment NIL became the law of the land in the summer of 2021, a new, legal form of pay-for-play emerged, courtesy of booster collectives.

High school recruits and transfers alike were lured to schools by collectives offering six- and seven-figure deals. Those deals did not require players to participate in the promotional and endorsement opportunities at the heart of what the NCAA described as legitimate NIL.

The fake NIL was under-the-table cheating out in the open — unregulated but entirely legal.

Which brings us to the College Sports Commission (CSC) and the industry’s latest attempt to clean up the player procurement process.

In addition to the $20.5 million they will receive directly from the schools as part of the House settlement, athletes retain the ability to strike NIL deals with third-party entities. The difference: Now, they must report any contract of at least $600 to NIL Go, a technology platform designed by Deloitte that will determine if deals fall within a reasonable range of compensation. (That’s code for fair market value.)

If NIL Go rejects the deal, athletes have the option to adjust the terms and resubmit.

Or they could seek arbitration.

In theory, they could ignore NIL Go, agree to the contract and take the field (or court). But there’s a risk to competing with an invalid NIL deal, because the schools are arming the CSC with enforcement authority.

How will Seeley, a former assistant U.S. attorney, gather evidence? He won’t have subpoena power.

Also, who will design the penalty matrix?

“We’re in the process of developing some of those rules and structure and overall implementation,” Phillips said.

The industry is watching, and skeptics are everywhere.

Even if NIL Go successfully filters out the illegitimate business deals — the financial arrangements that are outside a reasonable range of compensation — the specter of pay-for-play remains.

And it could very well take a familiar form. That’s right, folks: Get ready for the return of bags o’ cash.

The CSC is designed to eliminate the donor collectives that paid players (legally) without demanding anything in return except a signature and their best effort on gameday.

But if deep-pocketed fans of School X want to help the team secure vital commitments from coveted transfers or blue-chip prospects, is the CSC really going to stop them?

Pay-for-play could simply return to its former location — under the table — and proceed with limited hesitation.

How can the CSC police the actions of thousands of donors representing hundreds of schools across 10 major college conferences?

How could it investigate and punish private citizens?

Will the schools report suspicious activity, invite Seeley to town and hand over whatever evidence helps expose transgressions committed by a million-dollar donor who is also helping to fund the new engineering building?

The commissioners know far more about the CSC than we do.

They have discussed the clean-up project extensively with campus officials desperate for law and order.

They made a shrewd move hiring a former assistant U.S. attorney and not a college sports lifer.

But it’s difficult to ignore the leap-of-faith component built into their new world order. College sports has too many athletes with financial needs, too many sources of cash and too many fans who care about winning above all else.

The result is a revamped system that’s rooted in best intentions but dependent on a leap of faith.

“Ultimately,” Sankey said, “it’s incumbent upon everyone, presidents and chancellors, athletic directors, head coaches, assistant coaches and staff and, yes, commissioners, to make the terms of this settlement work.”

Show Transcript

Elevate announced Monday morning a $500 million private capital fund to help college sports’ athletic departments navigate the revenue-sharing era. Dubbed the College Investment Initiative, Penn State and UCLA are the first two clients, signing eight-figure private capital deals with Elevate, sources confirmed to On3. Elevate touted two signings when it announced the multi-million dollar capital fund on Monday.

It’s only the starting point for the investment fund. Elevate’s other university clients include Alabama, Notre Dame and Florida. Penn State and UCLA are making college sports history by being the first two athletic departments to take on private capital. Sportico first reported the news on Monday afternoon.

In a statement to On3 on Monday, Elevate said it isn’t “announcing any clients associated with this investment initiative, those two schools are Elevate ticket operations clients.” UCLA stated in an email to On3 that it is exploring expanding its partnership with Elevate, and is not part of the College Investment Initiative.

“Elevate serves as our partner in ticketing strategy and operations,” Penn State athletic director Pat Craft said in a statement. “To clarify, our relationship is strictly limited to these services, and we have no affiliation or involvement with any private equity firm or fund.”

Elevate, a global sports and marketing agency, has partnered with private equity firm Velocity Capital Management and Texas Permanent School Fund Corporation to provide schools with money and resources to develop revenue-generating projects. The College Investment Initiative provides a new funding source for athletics programs pursuing projects, such as facility upgrades and renovations.

It’s an unprecedented moment in college sports. Private equity has circled in on college sports in recent years. Weatherford Capital and RedBird Capital Partners combined their powers (and billions in cash) last spring to create Collegiate Athletics Solutions.

“It’s upfront capital, as we do have a multi-year agreement for Elevate services and from a payback perspective as well, on that capital investment,” Elevate’s chief business officer for college, Jonathan Marks, told On3 in an interview on Monday. “We believe that the $500 million is just a starting point. With the discussions that we’ve had before the announcement, to what we’re having now, we firmly believe we’re going to be able to increase that significantly, and expect to have another three to five or six deals done by football season. We expect that number to continue to grow from there.”

The news comes on the heels of the House v. NCAA settlement, which was approved on Friday. Since the NCAA was founded in 1906, institutions have never directly paid athletes. That will now change with the settlement ushering in the revenue-sharing era of college sports.

Beginning July 1, schools will be able to share $20.5 million with athletes, with football expected to receive 75%, followed by men’s basketball (15%), women’s basketball (5%) and the remainder of sports (5%). The amount shared in revenue will increase annually.

Marks told the Sports Business Journal on Monday that Elevate is considering conference-level funding opportunities through league-controlled assets, such as jersey patches, field logos and tickets. The company has relationships with the ACC and Big East.

Velocity, the sports-focused private equity firm launched by David Abrams and Arne Rees in 2021, is an existing investor in Elevate. The Texas Permanent School Fund is Velocity’s majority backer, having committed $200M late in 2024, and holds an ownership stake in the firm.