Big Ten Conference Challenges Claims of Coercion Over $2.4 Billion Investment

The Big Ten Conference has firmly rejected allegations from a University of Michigan regent stating that Commissioner Tony Petitti threatened punitive measures against the university for not endorsing a proposed $2.4 billion private investment plan. The assertion was made by Mark Bernstein, chair of the Michigan Board of Regents, who described the situation as an attempt to “strong-arm” the university, questioning Petitti’s leadership within the conference.

In a statement to The Associated Press, Bernstein claimed, “The Big Ten conference commissioner has threatened the University of Michigan with penalties if we do not approve this deal.” He emphasized that no institution should be intimidated, asserting, “Nobody pushes around the University of Michigan — ever.”

The Big Ten responded to Bernstein’s comments by stating that no institution is being forced to support the investment plan, which has been under discussion since last year. Darryll Pines, president of the University of Maryland and chair of the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors, affirmed that the process has been collaborative and thorough, including substantial input from the University of Michigan.

He remarked, “Since we first met in 2024, this has been a collaborative, fair and thorough process that included the University of Michigan. Any other characterization of the work of the COPC and the conference office is inaccurate.” Pines also indicated that the conference is working with a consultant hired by Michigan to assess the investment proposal.

Discussions around the investment plan have emerged as the Big Ten seeks new revenue channels to support its 18 member schools. The plan could allow each participating school to share up to $20.5 million with its athletes this academic year, a figure expected to rise in subsequent years. The potential creation of a commercial entity, Big Ten Enterprises, is intended to generate funds through UC Investments, which manages the University of California’s public pension. Under this arrangement, each school would receive an initial distribution of the $2.4 billion while UC Investments would take a 10% cut of the conference’s media rights and sponsorship revenues.

The proposed plan has drawn criticism from some member institutions. Jennifer Cohen, the athletic director at the University of Southern California, expressed concerns about the uneven revenue distribution among schools, stating that the deal does not adequately reflect the value of the USC brand. In a letter to boosters, she acknowledged the benefits of membership in the Big Ten but insisted on prioritizing what is best for USC.

In a statement addressing the current discourse, Jagdeep Singh Bachher, Chief Investment Officer of UC Investments, praised the conference leadership for their efforts but noted that misinformation has clouded discussions. He emphasized the importance of unity among all member schools for the success of Big Ten Enterprises, acknowledging that some institutions may need additional time to assess the proposal.

The conversation around external funding in college athletics has prompted scrutiny from lawmakers. Senator Maria Cantwell has requested an analysis from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation regarding the potential impact of such funding on the tax-exempt status of athletic departments. Cantwell noted, “Legitimate questions have been raised about whether it is time to rethink the tax-exempt regime under which college sports currently operates,” following discussions with Big Ten leaders last month.

Concerns about governance have also been raised by external organizations. Michael Poliakoff, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, criticized the lack of input from the boards of Big Ten schools regarding the proposed agreement, stating, “This is not how responsible governance functions.” Bernstein echoed these sentiments, asserting that many university leaders have not thoroughly evaluated the deal. “If they did, they would not support it in its current form,” he stated.

University of Michigan Regent Sarah Hubbard clarified that the Big Ten has not imposed a deadline for the university to vote on the proposal. Another regent, Jordan Acker, voiced his disapproval of the plan, arguing that aligning with private equity is not beneficial for the university. Bernstein characterized the investment strategy as “reckless” and “short-sighted,” advocating for a more comprehensive solution to the challenges facing collegiate athletics.

He concluded by expressing concern that the current approach does not adequately explore alternative strategies necessary to address the pressing issues many Big Ten athletic departments encounter. The ongoing discussions within the Big Ten underscore the complexities and challenges faced as colleges navigate the evolving landscape of college athletics and funding.