BYU-I Sports

Yesterday, Front Office Sports published an article about why college athletic deaprtemnts have largely steered clear of private-equity (PE) deals despite rising financial pressures. The main concern is that PE’s profit-driven goals clash with universities’ educational missions. Leaders at wealthy schools, especially in the Big Ten, see little upside in trading institutional control for outside money. One administrator described the exchange as “a small amount of money for an enormous amount of the control.” Northwestern’s athletic director noted that Big Ten resources provide enough stability to avoid such arrangements altogether.

Instead, some attention has shifted to private-credit models, such as Collegiate Athletic Solutions (CAS), which offer $50–200 million in performance-based capital without requiring ownership stakes. These too have failed to produce deals, in part because schools waited for clarity on the House v. NCAA settlement. That case has now created new costs, $20.5 million per school in athlete revenue sharing and added scholarships, making funding needs more urgent. As a result, interest could grow among mid-tier programs with tighter budgets, such as Boise State, which is openly exploring creative private-capital partnerships.

Overall, top conferences remain skeptical, with the ACC, SEC, and others unconvinced that current offers make financial sense. Experts cite unclear ROI, gaps in athletic financial management, and the temporary nature of PE investments as barriers. For now, PE remains a fringe option in college sports; wealthy programs are content to rely on traditional revenue, while smaller schools cautiously explore alternatives.

Benefits of PE in College Sports

Not everything about private equity in college sports is negative. While many administrators worry about control and mission alignment, there are clear advantages to having access to outside capital. For schools facing rising costs from athlete revenue sharing, NIL infrastructure, and facility demands, private equity can offer financial tools that are hard to ignore. When managed carefully, these partnerships could provide meaningful support without undermining a university’s long-term goals.

One of the biggest draws is the immediate capital infusion. Private equity can deliver tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars up front, giving athletic departments the flexibility to cover new expenses like revenue sharing and expanded scholarships without cutting programs. Beyond operating budgets, PE funds can also drive major facility upgrades—stadium renovations, training centers, and technology investments that would otherwise take years of donor campaigns or state support to finance. This ability to modernize infrastructure quickly is attractive for schools that want to stay competitive.

Another benefit is revenue diversification. Instead of relying solely on ticket sales, TV contracts, and booster donations, private equity offers another stream of funding that can stabilize cash flow in volatile years. On top of the money, these firms often bring business expertise in areas like sponsorship, media rights, and fan engagement, helping athletic departments operate more like professional sports organizations. For many schools, this injection of outside knowledge could modernize systems still run with an academic mindset.

Private equity can also transfer risk. Depending on how deals are structured, investors may shoulder some of the financial exposure, giving universities breathing room as they adapt to NCAA reforms and legal changes. This can provide short-term flexibility, acting as a bridge while schools adjust to the significant costs of the House settlement and athlete pay models. And with those added resources, programs gain a competitive edge—more funding for athletes, coaches, and sponsorships means stronger positioning against peers who stick with traditional models.

PE & BYU-Idaho Athletics

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints occupies a unique position in American higher education, especially in the realm of athletics. As a private religious organization, the Church exercises a degree of control over Brigham Young University (BYU) that allows the institution to operate differently from most universities bound by state oversight, public funding restrictions, or political pressures. This independence has been critical in enabling BYU to compete at the highest levels of college sports. While public institutions must balance legislative scrutiny, fluctuating budgets, and shifting political priorities, BYU benefits from a consistent and unified vision under Church leadership. The ecclesiastical and secular missions of the university are coordinated under one governing structure, ensuring that the school can pursue excellence in both academics and athletics without compromise.

BYU’s athletic success is a product of this structure. The Church’s resources, both financial and organizational, have allowed BYU to build nationally competitive programs in football, basketball, volleyball, and beyond. Facilities, coaching salaries, and long-term investments are supported not only by traditional athletics revenue but also by the broader stability of the Church as an institution. This model has shielded BYU from some of the financial instability that plagues other universities, particularly in the wake of conference realignment, escalating media rights negotiations, and legal settlements such as House v. NCAA. In effect, BYU’s ability to blend ecclesiastical stewardship with competitive athletics demonstrates the advantages of a private entity directing the balance between mission and competition.

This model offers a useful lens for considering the potential role of private equity in launching athletics at BYU–Idaho. When Ricks College transitioned into BYU–Idaho in 2001, the Church prioritized academics and spiritual education, discontinuing intercollegiate athletics. Two decades later, the financial realities of modern college sports make restarting athletics a daunting task. Facilities must be built or upgraded, scholarships funded, coaches hired, and operational infrastructure established—all before a team takes the field. For a school like BYU–Idaho, which does not have decades of television revenue or booster traditions to draw upon, private equity could provide the initial infusion of capital to make athletics viable again.

Critics often argue that private equity introduces conflicts between profit motives and educational missions. However, in BYU–Idaho’s case, private equity would not replace ecclesiastical oversight but rather complement it. Just as the LDS Church harmonizes spiritual and secular missions at BYU, private capital could function as a tool that supports the university’s goals without undermining them. In fact, private equity could accelerate the alignment of athletics with the Church’s broader objectives by funding programs that are financially sustainable from the start. With the right deal structures, risk would be shifted to investors while the university retained control of values and direction.

The combination of ecclesiastical stewardship and private financial backing could create a model for BYU–Idaho that is both mission-driven and competitive. Athletics could be reintroduced in a way that enhances student life, strengthens community identity, and expands the Church’s influence in sports, while avoiding the budgetary strain that often burdens new programs. BYU’s success shows what is possible when a private entity like the Church commits to excellence in athletics. For BYU–Idaho, private equity could provide the bridge between institutional mission and competitive reality, ensuring that the rebirth of Viking sports is both principled and sustainable.