DALLAS — Last summer, Greg Sankey received several phone calls from private equity firms seeking to set up a meeting with the SEC commissioner.
So he went.
There was talk of a multi-million dollar injection of funds, new financial resources to strengthen an already valuable brand and its members. He absorbed the information and learned a lot, but took no action.
Months later, as college leaders began finalizing an extension of the College Football Playoff contract, a new request came from a separate group: a text message to conference commissioners from the leaders of a private-equity-backed “super league.”
Join us for dinner in New York.
He didn’t go there.
It turns out that Super League executives have been working behind the scenes for months, meeting with college athletic directors and school presidents, some of whom were even in the SEC. The discussions have included consolidating major brands, more attractive matchups on game days, a new look for the playoffs and a tiered distribution system for the league’s most prestigious programs.
“I think ideas are better when they’re shared through the front door, not the back door,” Sankey told Yahoo Sports Tuesday in a wide-ranging interview on the second day of the SEC’s four-day media days in downtown Dallas.
Capital investmenteven more perhaps than conference realignmentare some of the most popular buzzwords in college sports right now. Private equity. Cash infusion. Equity investment. Venture capital. This jargon is increasingly synonymous in the industry with touchdowns, field goals, first downs and foul lines.
A year away from the most historic change in college sports history — a revenue-sharing model tied to a deal with the House that allows schools to pay athletes directly — universities, athletic departments and entire leagues are looking for new revenue streams, such as commercial logos on football fields and naming rights deals with corporate sponsors.
Another route is private capital, as explained, at the school level, in this May article.
Nationally, several separate groups have spent the past few months sharing with school administrators models that would transform the 133-team FBS college football division into a smaller group of heavyweights competing in a tiered system, some with or without relegation (think England’s Premier League). The proposals carry astronomical financial sums, with some promising top schools like Ohio State, Texas and Alabama three or four times what they currently receive in annual distributions — money that comes from more valuable television contracts than currently exist.
Despite the finalization of the College Football Playoff contract — a deal that binds all 10 FBS conferences for at least another eight years — these private-equity-backed superleague concepts persist. In fact, meetings are expected to continue next month.
Sankey, arguably the most powerful person in the sport, is very clear about his position on this. For those inside and outside his conference who are lured by promises of big paydays, high-profile games and simplified governance, he is sending a message: We can do it ourselves.
“There’s been frustration with presidents, coaches and athletic directors over the last few years,” he told Yahoo Sports. “I say, ‘I understand you’re frustrated.’ When there’s change and frustration, now it’s, ‘Let’s pursue new ideas!’”
“Any of the ideas discussed can be decided in a conference or a series of conferences. I don’t understand why people feel the need to cede their authority to an outside entity when they can make decisions.”
Decisions on what exactly?
Sports management, for starters. But that problem could be solved fairly quickly. The most powerful conferences are expected to gain more control under a new DI governance model as part of the impending changes related to the NCAA’s House settlement.
But let’s face it, it’s all about money. If Tennessee, Michigan or Florida can make $200 million a year from some new initiative instead of $70 million a year from their own conference, how can they compete with that?
“The idea that money is a solution to our current situation should be seen as a threat,” Sankey said. “In a system in crisis, simply injecting a small amount of money does not solve the problems that are causing these upheavals.”
But no one, not even Sankey, believes that these external pressures are all negative. They will and have already brought about the necessary changes. He is now “exploring the opportunities” with his members.
“It’s clear that schools have been approached,” Sankey said. “I’ve had phone calls where they’ve been approached. We have a strength and relationships here where we have an open dialogue within our conference. I don’t think outside ideas will stop. Because I understand the reality of what’s being presented, we can make each of those decisions for ourselves.”
Changes are already underway, whether because of these pressures or not. The Big Ten, for example, ended its long tradition of sharing a portion of ticket revenue among league members.
Even the SEC is looking for revenue at all levels. The conference recently signed a deal with Southwest Airlines, its official airline.
In another potentially revenue-generating initiative, the proposal to add a ninth SEC football game has been “reintroduced” as an item on the administrative agenda, Sankey told Yahoo Sports. Programs that were initially against adding a ninth conference game are now more interested in the initiative, according to several conference school administrators — a way to improve schedules with bigger games and generate more revenue through ticket sales as well as the television deal with ESPN.
Any decision is expected next year, after officials watch the first expanded MFF unfold.
“We’re going to use this as a learning experience and see how the (CFP) committee evaluates the competition, rather than doing analysis to predict,” Sankey said. “That sets the timeline for the first quarter of next year.”
For many in college sports, there is only one step, one inevitability: the unequal distribution of revenue among conferences, a system that rewards the programs that generate the most revenue. Should Vanderbilt, for example, get the same television check as Texas?
As college sports continue to shed their amateur shells and move toward professionalism, outside forces will come to bear.
Where will it all end? According to one executive, the industry, which has so long resisted change, must turn inward and do just that: change.
“It felt like the system was working pretty well, but not perfectly. There’s no such thing as perfection. It’s a classic idea that ‘big is the enemy of good,’” Sankey said. “It’s hard to change when you think something is working well, it’s a historical model, and you’re in a higher education system.”
“As we go through this, let us not give up our decision-making power. We must take responsibility.”