The Big Ten’s Private Capital Deal Held Up by Its Own Members

Last month, the Big Ten announced a private capital deal worth around $2.4 billion with UC Investments, the pension fund for the University of California system. Now as the deal is set to go to a vote for approval, member schools of the Big 10 are threatening to sue the conference in order to release more details about the deal.[i]

 

This deal would involve spinning off Big Ten assets, like media rights and sponsorship deals, into a separate private fund called Big Ten Enterprises and subsequently selling a 10% stake to UC Investments for $2.4 billion.[ii] The deal would extend the conference’s grant of rights until 2046. In exchange, the $2.4 billion would be distributed to Big Ten schools on a tier basis, with schools receiving a minimum payment of around $100 million, and larger programs receiving higher payouts.

 

Earlier this week, however, UC Investments announced that the deal would be paused until there was unity among the members.[iii] Michigan and USC have been the largest opponents to the deal, with school leadership stating that the deal is fiscally unsound and that selling conference assets is at odds with their fiduciary responsibilities. Currently, Michigan and USC both have interim presidents, therefore it is the board members who hold significant influence in these negotiations. [iv] Michigan, a public school, has an 8-person Board of Regents that is publicly elected; therefore such members have significant fiduciary responsibilities and are accountable to the public.[v] As this deal would effectively cede some control over conference assets to a pension fund, to financial managers that conference members have never worked with before, it is understandable why a publicly-elected body would be critical of such a deal when they do not have all the details. As Michigan’s media rights are the Big Ten’s second-most valuable asset behind Ohio State’s,[vi] Michigan does have some leverage in these negotiations.

 

The issue at the heart of this discussion is whether the Big Ten even needs the unanimous approval of its member schools to close a deal like this.[vii] The Big Ten does not believe that it needs the unanimous approval of its members and is willing to move forward with the deal without Michigan and USC. While the door would still be open for these schools to join later, they would not get a cut of the money upfront.

 

While unconfirmed, it is widely reported that a vote on the matter could take place as early as Thanksgiving, meaning that time is of the essence to convince Michigan board members to approve the deal. If the deal is approved without Michigan and USC, Michigan has threatened to leave the Big Ten and go independent, thereby lowering the value of the deal.[viii] For athletic programs in a post-House era of revenue-sharing, the loss of Michigan in such a deal would mean tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue, revenue that could be used to pay athletes and upgrade facilities. Therefore, the Big Ten is on the clock to work out the details that would satisfy Michigan’s board and bring the program back to the table.

[i] https://frontofficesports.com/board-members-opposition-campaign-to-big-ten-investment-proposal/

[ii] https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/47003108/opposition-michigan-usc-pauses-24b-big-ten-deal

[iii] https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/47003108/opposition-michigan-usc-pauses-24b-big-ten-deal

[iv] https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6802248/2025/11/13/michigan-big-ten-private-capital-uc-investments/

[v] https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/47003108/opposition-michigan-usc-pauses-24b-big-ten-deal

[vi] https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6802248/2025/11/13/michigan-big-ten-private-capital-uc-investments/

[vii] https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6802248/2025/11/13/michigan-big-ten-private-capital-uc-investments/

[viii] https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/47003108/opposition-michigan-usc-pauses-24b-big-ten-deal