The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) is urging governing boards at Big Ten universities to halt a proposed $2.4 billion private equity deal between the Big Ten Conference and UC Investments, the investment branch of the University of California system.
In its letter, ACTA—an advocate for “trustee-led” university governance—raised concerns about transparency and oversight, calling for university regents and trustees to block any final vote on the transaction until their boards are fully informed and authorize participation.
The letter arrives at a time when college athletics is undergoing a significant transformation after entering the name, image, and likeness (NIL) era, in which college athletes—typically football and basketball players—are paid millions to play.
The widely reported transaction, proposed earlier this month, would see UC Investments acquire a 10 percent equity stake in a newly created business entity, Big Ten Enterprises, in exchange for a $2.4 billion infusion, potentially distributing between $100-135 million to each member school.
The arrangement is designed to extend the conference’s “grant of rights,” effectively binding universities into the conference through 2046. However, there is internal dissent: at least two member schools—the University of Michigan and the University of Southern California—have raised objections about the deal and the governance process surrounding it.
The letter emphasizes that boards of regents and trustees are legally charged with safeguarding their universities’ missions and assets, including athletic and commercial resources.
ACTA warns that “effectively selling or transferring an athletic department’s most valuable rights, its media, branding, or commercial assets is unquestionably a material institutional decision requiring board oversight” and that many Big Ten boards have not had access to the full details or implications of the pending deal.
The letter called for board-led responses to the equity deal at each university. The president or chancellor of each Big Ten university should abstain from moving forward until the university’s full board authorizes it. But that should not happen until the board is briefed, receives all legal documents and analyses, and has time to consider them.
It also advocates for permanent reforms, stipulating that boards, not athletic directors, presidents, or chancellors, should hold final authority over any future transactions involving the monetization of university assets.
The deal and its process have become controversial not only for their financial magnitude but also for their potential to shift control of university assets away from public oversight.
While no Texas universities would be directly involved, they would be impacted. The Big Ten is a Power 5 conference with significant influence and sway in college athletics. Observers believe the deal would send shockwaves across the country and would undoubtedly impact both the Big 12 and SEC, which are home to Texas universities.
It also represents the continuation of a trend in which regents are being circumvented in decision-making. In Texas, regents are accountable to Texans; bureaucrats aren’t.
A vote on the deal has not yet been formally scheduled, and internal division among the Big Ten’s 18 schools raises uncertainty about whether the proposal will move forward.
