My Turn | Are Big Ten schools in the entertainment business? | Guest Commentary

The Big Ten is an entertainment business that recently generated $1.46 billion — mostly from TV contracts — while distributing $1.37 billion to 18 schools.

These figures are big increases from 2022, when the Big Ten generated $845.6 million and disbursed $812.5 million — up 73 percent in just three years for revenue, and 69 percent in school disbursements.

During this time, the Big Ten Conference revised its tax-exempt mission statement.

Its IRS return for 2025 says: “Shared practices and policies that enforce the priority of academics in student-athletes’ lives.”

Its tax return in 2022 said: “The Big Ten Conference … is an association of world-class universities whose member institutions share a common mission of research, graduate, professional and undergraduate teaching and public service.”

To implement this revised academic purpose in 2025, the Big Ten paid former commissioner Jim Delany over $3 million in salary and an additional $2.8 million.

Current commissioner Tony Petitti earned $4.47 million.

Big Ten professors could say that travel and practice schedules after West Coast schools joined the conference have failed to prioritize academics in student-athletes’ lives.

A more accurate mission statement would say: “Pooled media rights and scheduling of athletic events to prioritize the funding of athletic departments.”

This Big Ten’s massive financial growth has little to do with prioritizing academics in athletes’ lives.

Spending sprees

Are Big Ten schools also entertainment businesses?

This question is important because sports and entertainment used to be separate industries.

Today, they are fused.

My current analysis focuses on the 10 traditional Big Ten schools.

I directed Microsoft Copilot to analyze the 2025 budgets of all academic units at each school.

The AI program suggested that my analysis focus on six schools with the most similar budget structures.

For the athletic side, 2025 data was used for total expenses by athletic departments.

Six schools emerged as comparators.

They are ranked by lowest level of athletic department spending as a percentage of academic spending: Wisconsin, 6.9 percent; Michigan 7.4 percent; Purdue, 7.5 percent; Illinois, 11.5 percent; Ohio State, 12.4 percent; and Iowa, 14.8 percent.

These figures vary for different reasons.

Iowa has a smaller student population, with 31,382 students. This could explain why it spends more on athletic spending as a percentage of its smaller academic budget.

Ohio State has a large student population, with 62,010, but fields 36 NCAA teams.

My focus is on the big picture, not a specific school.

Overall, athletic departments spend about 10 percent of the total amount that their schools spend on academics.

There is no clear interpretation for the 10 percent figure.

Cap on coach pay?

Some people could conclude that schools are not in the entertainment business.

Others might say that athletic department spending at 10 percent of academic spending means that an entertainment business is embedded in school budgets.

What is my take?

First, the 10 percent figure, by itself, does not detract from these schools’ primary academic missions.

However, the new information is the large upsurge in Big Ten revenues since 2022, showing that the athletic business is growing much faster than the academic side.

Second, when the 10 percent figure is viewed in the legislative arena, where universities are actively supporting the Protect College Sports Act, schools are squandering their political capital on the wrong priority — the 10 percent for athletics, not the 90 percent for their academic mission.

Third, there is growing political interest to limit spending on coaches and end tax deductions for name, image, likeness donors.

On Sept. 28, a Senate amendment to the bill proposed a limit on a coach’s annual salary to $5 million. The amendment failed by a 52-47 vote.

A change in party control in 2027 could bring that proposal back for a vote and different outcome.

Who could reasonably argue against a $5 million annual cap on a coach’s salary — especially when the act proposes a nine-year freeze on revenue sharing for athletes?

Academics vs. athletics

In 2023, Sens. John Thune, R-S.D., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., introduced the Athlete Opportunity and Taxpayer Integrity Act.

The bill would end favorable tax treatment for NIL spending, stating: “No deduction shall be allowed for any contribution … to compensate … school athletes for the use of their name, image or likeness by reason of their status as athletes.”

Why should NIL payments be tax-deductible?

NIL spending serves no charitable or civic-minded purpose.

It’s meant to commercialize college athletics.

The hyper-commercialization of college athletics — this year, the new aspects are jersey patches and sideline corporate logos — could lead to stronger legislative curbs on mega-donors and corporations.

Would a new Congress end tax deductions for direct donations to university athletic departments?

What about the tax-exempt status of power conferences that file IRS statements with fishy mission statements?

My current analysis sets a baseline with 2025 data.

In the future, increases to the 10 percent figure would signal a decline in a school’s relative valuation of academics.

Decreases in the 10 percent figure would imply a better balancing of a university’s spending priorities in favor of academics.

For now, it is enough to think about whether the 10 percent budget figure represents a proper balance of athletic and academic spending.