ncaa – Duane Morris Sports Law

December 17, 2025December 17, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

University of Utah Advances Private Equity Model for College Athletics Funding

The University of Utah is advancing a groundbreaking agreement with private-equity firm Otro Capital that is expected to generate more than $500 million for its athletics program. The deal creates a new for-profit entity, Utah Brands & Entertainment LLC, which will manage the commercial and revenue operations of the school’s athletic department, such as sponsorships, ticketing, licensing, concessions, and media-related revenue. The University of Utah will retain majority ownership and board control, while Otro Capital and a select group of major donors will acquire minority stakes.

This arrangement represents a significant shift in how a public university structures and finances its athletics operations. By blending private investment with donor participation, the model provides access to substantial capital at a time when athletic departments face rising costs tied to facilities, NIL activity, and anticipated revenue-sharing with student athletes. It also introduces new legal considerations, including governance design, transparency obligations for a for-profit entity attached to a public institution, and potential securities and conflict-of-interest issues arising from donor-investors gaining equity positions.

The partnership may also signal a broader trend toward hybrid public-private financing in college sports. The University of Utah is not the first to spin off its athletic department’s revenue streams into a private entity. However, the creation of a new for-profit entity, one that is majority-owned by the school but supported by private investors, underscores how rapidly the financial pressures of college sports are accelerating. Rising operational costs, the expansion of NIL opportunities, and the likelihood of direct revenue sharing with athletes have pushed universities to explore alternative funding mechanisms. For college athletics more broadly, the University of Utah’s model may become a blueprint. By blending university control with outside capital and professionalized operational management, the structure is designed to meet the commercial realities of today’s sports landscape while still preserving institutional oversight. If successful, this could influence everything from facilities funding and media rights strategy to athlete compensation and long-term planning. It also raises larger questions about how institutions reconcile what they have long dubbed as “amateurism” and their mission, with the sport’s growing commercial pressures.

Ultimately, the deal signals a broader evolution: college athletics is moving quickly toward professionalized, capital-intensive operations, and private equity (or debt) is likely to become a more common part of that ecosystem.

November 26, 2025November 26, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

NCAA Resets Rules on Student-Athlete Betting on Professional Sports

In a notable rebuke to the Division I Council’s recent policy push, NCAA Division I member schools have voted by a two-thirds majority to rescind a previously approved rule change that would have allowed student-athletes and athletics department staff to place wagers on professional sports. The proposal—introduced by the Council in October and scheduled to take effect on November 22, 2025—triggered swift and widespread backlash across the sports, media, and entertainment sectors. Following a 30-day review period, more than 240 Division I institutions voted to roll back the measure, reaffirming the NCAA’s longstanding prohibition on all forms of sports betting by student-athletes and athletics personnel.

Recent Investigations Heightening Scrutiny

Critics of the proposed rule change warned that the measure carried significant risks for the integrity of both collegiate and professional competition. Opponents emphasized that permitting student-athletes to wager on the very professional leagues they hope to enter could create inherent conflicts of interest, particularly in light of their relationships with scouts, prospective teammates, and coaches. They also cautioned that access to privileged or insider information—whether obtained intentionally or inadvertently—could undermine competitive fairness and expose student-athletes to substantial legal, ethical, and compliance concerns.

In line with the integrity risks, the NCAA’s reversal comes in the wake of several high-profile scandals, which likely contributed to the NCAA’s decision. For example, just days after the NCAA’s proposal was announced in October, certain NBA players were charged in a federal gambling investigation for allegedly sharing inside information and manipulating their performance, and certain MLB players were charged on counts including wire fraud and conspiracy to influence sporting events. In the college game, the NCAA permanently revoked the eligibility of numerous Division I men’s basketball players for placing bets on their own games, sharing inside information, and manipulating performance to influence prop bets and has announced ongoing investigations against many more, involving allegations of wagering on their own contests, sharing non-public information, and attempting to influence game outcomes.

The membership vote reflects a recalibration by the NCAA, which appeared poised to capitalize on the expanding legalized sports-wagering market by relaxing its long-standing restrictions. But the recent wave of high-profile gambling investigations likely underscored the inherent risks of such a change. In effect, while the sports-betting industry continues its rapid growth, the NCAA has stepped back from a policy that might have opened the door to new revenue opportunities—pulling the proposal before it ever truly got off the sideline.

June 26, 2025June 26, 2025 by Duane Morris

How the NCAA NIL Settlement Affects Higher Education Institutions

On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved the settlement agreement in House v. NCAA, Oliver v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. As higher education institutions determine how to implement the terms of the agreement, all should be cognizant of potential Title IX implications. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.

June 26, 2024 by Andrew John (AJ) Rudowitz

Houston Christian University Raises First Substantive Challenge to the House v. NCAA Settlement

Houston Christian University (“HCU”) recently moved to intervene in the potentially historic antitrust settlement between the NCAA and current and former college athletes. The proposed settlement involves the NCAA, conferences, and member schools paying $2.8 billion to college athletes to resolve alleged antitrust violations related to compensation to the athletes for their name, image, and likeness. In addition, the NCAA and its Power Five conferences (the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference and Southeastern Conference) agreed to allow their student athletes to receive pay directly from the universities they compete for—a complete departure from the NCAA’s long-standing system of “amateurism.” The settlement agreement is pending approval by Judge Wilken in the Northern District of California where the cases are pending.

In its motion to intervene, HCU argues that its financial interests were not adequately represented during settlement negotiations. HCU argues that the settlement will unfairly “divert funds from academics to athletics” and will negatively impact all of its students. HCU’s argument is consistent with the majority of the criticism facing the proposed settlement—that the Power Five conferences and NCAA were the only parties at the negotiating table while non-Power Five schools will be on the hook for some of the settlement proceeds. The current settlement proposal apportions the $2.8 billion as follows: 24% from the Power Five conferences, 10% from the Group of Five conferences, 13% from Football Championship Subdivision schools, and 12% from Division I schools without football programs). HCU and other potential interveners in the proposed settlement could result in Judge Wilken denying the proposed class settlement as currently structured.