No business model that relies on donors and or students fees to stay solvent is a solid business.
2 Likes
https://x.com/i/status/1998406702211666286
This is the future - donât like it but it beats the hell out of a PE takeover IMHO.
2 Likes
A single sponsor tastefully done I donât mind. Have to keep it small tho
1 Like
This is cool. Real NIL. Real revenue. Not some PE BS.
Looks like taking PE money could call into question. Tax exempt status.
2 Likes
Yes, it will.
All revenue generating activities (with the exception of fundraising) & assets will be moving to the new for profit entity.
We need an AD, because we need to be on this train worse than any school in america. So many corporate dollars in the city, and we have so much athletic dependence on student fees.
1 Like
There are a few things that are a no go for me personally where the climate shifts to a place that I just walk away. Paying players with student fees, PE, players having unlimited eligibility - there just things that for me undermine the purpose of college athletics to a degree I canât follow.
Sponsorships to raise money for player payments is one of the few ways I am ok with.
Maybe this is wrong, but if it means the Niners are good again Iâd take money from the PIF.
There is no amount of winning that is worth that to me.
I still donât understand how private equity is going to make money on this. And definitely donât understand how they can make enough to return anything to investors.
Will anyone really invest that wasnât already investing in the athletic departments before the PE firm? Can the PE firm help increase the profit earned by the athletic departments? The ways for an athletic department to increase revenue seem pretty limited. Itâs pretty much media rights, merchandise, ticket sales and donors. How does an investment from PE increase any of those? If it doesnât increase any of those how does this benefit PE or the university? Sorry, I really just donât understand how itâs any different than asking donors to donate and youâve just put a middle man in the process. The only return on investment is a winning athletic department but isnât that the same return the same people would get from investing directly in the athletic department?
I THINK they are just betting that with their additional funding it can increase revenue (merch, media, tix, etc) which they now get a cut of. Of course everything is gonna go up tickets concessions etc
My questions are 1 - are they getting any amount of control in exchange for the money and 2 - is that return guaranteed.
If the PE has any influence of nonrevenue sports I would be very nervous for those sports. PE isnât known for supporting non money making endeavors.
1 Like
My question is: typically if PE canât âoptimizeâ the revenue model to achieve the profit margin they are looking for, they break up and piecemeal sell off the investment to get their money back.
What are they going to do if that happens with these programs?
4 Likes
FWIW:
The university retains majority ownership and decision-making authority of Utah Brands & Entertainment.
I think they are either dumb or have run out of other things to invest their money in.
They will find that they are dealing with a different animal here than normal investments.
In all cases these schools are institutions and will have political support to keep anything bad from happening.
clt says good bye womens soccer
And yes, same Weatherford family business that includes managing partner Will, chair of the USF Board of Trustees.
1 Like
I guess thatâs one way to get your school in a better conference. Just buy the conference.
1 Like