UCLA, Penn State deny reports of private equity funding from Elevate
UCLA and Penn State have denied a report Monday by Sportico that they have partnered with consulting firm Elevate to receive funding from its $500 million College Investment Initiative.
Elevate formally announced the initiative earlier Monday and told news outlets that two schools had signed up with the project.
However, UCLA and Penn State officials each denied Sportico's reporting that they have engaged with the new fund. Both schools said they're partnered with Elevate for ticketing operations but not for private equity.
The College Investment Initiative is backed by Velocity Capital Management and the Texas Permanent School Fund. The idea behind the initiative is to offer capital to schools for revenue-generating projects -- like NIL platforms or athletic venue upgrades.
Boise State athletic director Jeramiah Dickey told Front Office Sports that his university is 'actively considering' private equity and hopes to have a deal set within the next six months.
Field Level Media 2025 - All Rights Reserved
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
If Tennessee chooses state law over NIL pledge, it risks being kicked out of SEC
This story was updated to add new information. A new Tennessee law triggered the power conferences of college sports into demanding member schools like the University of Tennessee and Vanderbilt to sign a loyalty pledge over new player pay rules or face possible expulsion. Knox News confirmed the existence of the loyalty document through a source with direct knowledge of the situation. The source requested anonymity because those correspondence are between the conferences and member schools. The document is being circulated by the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten and the SEC. It demands that member schools agree to follow new rules involving paying players despite state laws giving the freedom to circumvent the rules. And the pledge also requires schools to waive their right to sue the NCAA or conferences if they disagree with the implementation of those rules. The document has not been finalized. But potential consequences of not signing it include expulsion from the conference or participation in playing games against other power conference schools. The new Tennessee law applies to all four-year universities in the state, public and private. UT and Vanderbilt are in the SEC, one of four power conferences. A clause in the law permits Vanderbilt and private universities to opt out of the protections of the state law in order to cooperate with the NCAA or the College Sports Commission, a newly proposed entity overseen by the four power conferences. Additionally, it appears that UT is guiding the approach of the law because of how it's utilized lawmakers against the NCAA in the past. University of Memphis (American Athletic Conference), Middle Tennessee State (Conference USA) and other state universities are in mid-major conferences that likely won't require a pledge to follow the new college sports player pay rules. For better or worse, this makes Tennessee the epicenter of another earthquake in college sports. Expulsion from the SEC seems inconceivable for UT, a charter member since 1932. But whether it's a legitimate threat or a negotiating tactic remains to be seen. In a statement to Knox News, UT pledged to comply with the pending House settlement, which will create the new system for player pay, while acknowledging the need for the state law. 'The University of Tennessee has committed to following the House settlement if it is approved,' UT said in a statement. "That commitment has not changed. We appreciate the Tennessee General Assembly's forethought in passing NIL legislation that provides future protections for student-athletes and institutions beyond the House settlement." Vanderbilt and the SEC did not immediately respond to a Knox News request for comment. Threatening a loyalty pledge is a bold move by the NCAA and power conferences and, most certainly, in response to the new Tennessee law, which was signed by Gov. Bill Lee on May 1 and surfaced about two weeks later. The law protects Tennessee universities from anticipated antitrust lawsuits by athletes and NIL collectives unhappy with the player-pay rules coming to college sports. The new college sports system will include a salary cap of direct school-to-player pay, roster limits, revenue sharing that challenges Title IX principles of publicly funded institutions and a clearinghouse that vets NIL contracts. It could help stabilize college sports, but lawsuits challenging those rules are expected. If athletes, boosters or collectives sue, the new state law allows Tennessee universities to opt out of those college sports rules and shift liability toward the NCAA and conferences. It also prevents the NCAA from penalizing schools that circumvent those rules for purposes of following the law. Only a federal law, a valid court order or antitrust exemption for college athletics can supersede Tennessee's new law. That escape hatch for Tennessee schools sounded alarms across the college sports landscape. TENNESSEE DILEMMA: Why Vols winning too much could be a problem in player-pay era Opinions about Tennessee's approach vary around college sports. About a dozen states have enacted similar laws in the everchanging arms race of paying college athletes with few restrictions. But Tennessee's law is believed to be the strongest and most evasive to NCAA rules and the conditions of the pending House settlement. The timing of Tennessee's new law is also problematic. A new college sports system for paying athletes could begin as early as July 1, pending the multi-billion-dollar House settlement, which resolves three federal antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA and four power conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC). That settlement could come any day now. There's growing skepticism that it will solve the legal and structural problems in college sports, although some are cautiously optimistic that it'll at least achieve some progress. Opponents of the new state law believe Tennessee is nixing an effective agreement days before it's signed by a federal judge. But proponents of the state law believe Tennessee is being proactive by keeping its legal options in anticipation of a system it believes will fail. The most straightforward take of the situation is that Tennessee is protecting its own interests ahead of the SEC or college sports. Whether that's a wise move or heavy handed is debatable, but it certainly got the attention of college sports leaders. Tennessee schools intend to comply with the system prescribed in the House settlement, but that plan remains hazy. UT, specifically, wants legal cover if the new rules violate antitrust law. Here are examples of what UT fears if it's not given liability protection by the state law. A new clearinghouse will determine if NIL deals are legitimate and of fair market value. Legally, that appears to be a difficult standard to define. If an athlete or collective sues because an NIL deal is declined, UT wants the flexibility to approve the contract independent of NCAA rules or at least opt out of the system to avoid a lawsuit. Lawsuits on numerous antitrust grounds are anticipated after the House settlement is approved. The NCAA, power conferences and schools could be sued. There's no indication whether those suits would be successful. But UT doesn't want to be among the defendants, and the state law says Tennessee schools don't have to follow anticompetitive NCAA rules. If damages are awarded in antitrust lawsuits, the state law says that Tennessee schools can't be held responsible for paying them. Instead, the NCAA would be liable. UT wants to avoid punishment from the NCAA if it opts out of rules that it finds to violate antitrust laws. If that occurs, the state law protects UT from NCAA sanctions. Notably, UT football is already on probation until July 13, 2028, as a result of the Jeremy Pruitt recruiting scandal. Some college sports stakeholders believe Tennessee isn't being a team player. But UT has reasons to distance itself from the NCAA in future lawsuits, and it has a good track record against the governing body. They faced off in federal court in 2024 after the state of Tennessee, on behalf of UT, sued the NCAA to loosen its stringent rules over NIL benefits. UT won that battle. On Jan. 31, 2025, the NCAA and a coalition of states led by Tennessee reached a settlement that protects student-athletes' NIL rights during the recruiting process and prohibits the NCAA from bringing back its NIL recruiting ban. And in 2023, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti threatened to sue the NCAA if it gave the UT football team a postseason ban in the Pruitt recruiting scandal. UT also won that battle, as the NCAA relented from issuing a postseason ban. The bad blood between UT and the NCAA can't be ignored as a backdrop to this state law. And don't be surprised if Skrmetti or Tennessee lawmakers get involved again if this situation escalates. Adam Sparks is the Tennessee football beat reporter. Email X, formerly known as Twitter@AdamSparks. Support strong local journalism by subscribing at Get the latest news and insight on SEC football by subscribing to the SEC Unfiltered newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox. This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: If Tennessee chooses state law over NIL pledge, it risks SEC expulsion
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Zakai Zeigler lawyers: New Tennessee law prevents NCAA from keeping Vols player off court
Attorneys for former Tennessee basketball player Zakai Zeigler are trying to utilize a new state law curtailing the NCAA's authority to get him an additional year of eligibility. It's the latest twist in Zeigler's federal lawsuit against the NCAA, which challenges the so-called "Four Seasons" rule. The NCAA allows athletes to play four seasons during a five-year period, which can include a redshirt year. Zeigler ran out of NCAA eligibility by playing the past four seasons for UT basketball and not taking a redshirt. He wants to play a fifth season and earn millions of dollars in NIL pay. His attorneys say the NCAA does not have the authority in the state of Tennessee to stop him. The new Tennessee law, Senate Bill 536, allows Tennessee universities and athletes to opt out of NCAA rules if they appear to violate antitrust law. The initial purpose was to shift liability toward the NCAA and conferences and away from the schools in anticipated antitrust lawsuits by athletes unhappy with new player-pay rules in college sports. But broad language in the law – which has not been litigated in any court – strips the NCAA of its power if the association prohibits a Tennessee athlete from earning money. Zeigler's attorneys are seizing on that portion to push for a preliminary injunction that would grant him a fifth year of eligibility. '(The new Tennessee law is) unambiguously clear: Any NCAA action that impacts an athlete's ability to earn NIL compensation or his or her eligibility, like the Four-Seasons Rule, is illegal in Tennessee,' Zeigler's attorneys argued in a brief filed to the Eastern District of Tennessee federal court on June 7. The NCAA countered, accusing Zeigler of exploiting a law that doesn't apply to his case. '(Zeigler's brief) continues his effort to dismantle the NCAA membership's longstanding eligibility rules by any means necessary — this time through a tortured reading of an irrelevant law,' NCAA attorneys wrote in a brief to the court on June 8. 'Common sense dictates that the new Tennessee statute has nothing to do with this case.' The law appeared to be in response to Tennessee v. NCAA, a separate federal lawsuit that challenged the NCAA's rules that prohibited schools from facilitating NIL negotiations with players and recruits. Tennessee and the NCAA reached a settlement in that case in January, the same month that Senate Bill 536 was introduced in the legislature. The new law was signed by Gov. Bill Lee on May 1, and it sparked a fight between UT and power conferences about whether the school had to follow new player-pay rules set forth in the House settlement. However, a provision in the new law said the NCAA shall not 'interfere with, prohibit, restrict, or otherwise adversely affect an intercollegiate athlete's ability to earn compensation … and shall not otherwise impact an intercollegiate athlete's eligibility or full participation in intercollegiate athletic events.' Zeigler has used that language in his fight against the NCAA. Federal Judge Katherine Crytzer could invalidate the state law altogether if she wants. Zeigler has a guaranteed spot on Tennessee's 2025-26 basketball roster if Crytzer allows it. The latest hearing was held in Knoxville on June 6, and both sides are jockeying for a stronger position. Zeigler's attorney, Alex Little, told the judge that Zeigler intends to play for the Vols and was told he had a spot on the team. But Little also said the NCAA wouldn't be able to restrict Zeigler's entrance into the transfer portal, presumably meaning if his injunction request was approved, Zeigler would have the option to play at another school, not just UT. The NCAA argues that its eligibility rules are clear, and Zeigler cannot exceed them. But Zeigler's attorneys say that the law allows UT to determine who plays on its teams, not the NCAA. '(The NCAA) argued that the phrase 'can . . . participate' means that Mr. Zeigler must be eligible to participate under its own eligibility rules,' Zeigler's attorneys argued in a brief. 'But this argument assumes its own premise: that the NCAA — rather than the institution — determines who gets to 'participate in an athletic program (at an institution).'' The NCAA sees a contradiction in UT's apparent support of Zeigler and its acceptance of NCAA eligibility rules. After all, member schools like UT make up the NCAA and adopt its rules. The House settlement, which resolved three federal antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA and four power conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC), could strengthen the NCAA's position in the Zeigler case. The settlement was approved on June 6, just hours after the conclusion of Zeigler's hearing, and reinforced eligibility rules. The House settlement permitted the NCAA and conferences to cap the number of years an athlete is eligible to receive payments at four years plus a redshirt year, providing that all four of those seasons must be played within a consecutive five-year period. The SEC, which includes UT as a member, agreed to that settlement. 'The State's flagship institution (which happens to be the school Plaintiff attended) is a member of an athletic conference that has agreed to a settlement that expressly affirms the NCAA's Four-Seasons Rule,' NCAA attorneys argued in a brief. 'That same institution, the University of Tennessee, obtained valuable legal releases pursuant to that settlement and unsurprisingly has repeatedly endorsed it. 'It is accordingly hard to imagine the Tennessee legislature passing a law so obviously at odds with the University of Tennessee's legal position and interests.' Adam Sparks is the Tennessee football beat reporter. Email X, formerly known as Twitter@AdamSparks. Support strong local journalism by subscribing at Get the latest news and insight on SEC football by subscribing to the SEC Unfiltered newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox. This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Zakai Zeigler lawyers: Tennessee law supersedes NCAA eligibility rule
American Press
2 hours ago
- American Press
NCAA settlement fallout: McNeese has NIL plan as it enters new economic era
The term student-athlete died on Friday. For years, the NCAA has attempted to distinguish its players from professionals, emphasizing that they are students first. That mirage now seems lost forever. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken gave final approval to the landmark settlement in the House vs. NCAA antitrust lawsuit, which had been ongoing for five years, ending nearly a year of negotiations and revisions. The $2.8 billion, 10-year settlement will pay past players for missed name, image and likeness opportunities and allow colleges to pay current players directly starting July 1. As schools of all levels throughout the country scramble to figure out what's next, McNeese State officials say they are ready for the future. 'It's a new and exciting time for college athletics,' McNeese Director of Athletics Heath Schroyer said. 'My staff and I have been working for over a year to prepare. We've considered how these changes will impact McNeese athletics and also how we can best position ourselves.' Schroyer said McNeese will buy into the program, while other Football Championship Subdivision and Southland Conference schools will consider opting out. Houston Christian is likely one of those. 'We've decided to opt in and bring our collective/NIL in-house and participate in revenue sharing,' he said. 'We'll keep the same scholarship numbers this first year for each sport. During this first year, we will evaluate both our financial situation and the national landscape.' With the NIL becoming entirely in-house, the Ranch Collective, which previously ran the program, will transition into a new role, said Keifer Ackley, assistant AD for NIL and Student-Athlete at McNeese. 'This will allow us to streamline the process,' Ackley said. 'This will make us more transparent.' The Ranch Collective is likely to transition into a more marketing-focused tool for the university, he said. For now, it appears all programs will remain, but this is a fluid situation on all levels, and McNeese's goal, Schroyer said, remains to move up to the Football Bowl Subdivision level if the opportunity arises. There is also no telling what will come next as lawsuits are expected to be filed over a variety of concerns. 'Sometimes these decisions aren't popular with everyone, and that's OK,' Schroyer said. 'I get it. The only constant in life is change; college athletics have undergone significant changes in the last few years, and this trend is likely to continue.' NCAA President Charlie Baker wrote an open letter after the settlement: 'Approving the agreement reached by the NCAA, the defendant conferences and student-athletes in the settlement opens a pathway to begin stabilizing college sports,' Baker wrote. 'This new framework that enables schools to provide direct financial benefits to student-athletes and establishes clear and specific rules to regulate third-party NIL agreements marks a huge step forward for college sports.' Earlier this spring, Baker spoke to McNeese athletes about the future of college sports and seemed shocked by the number of players who had transferred to the school. As part of the settlement, McNeese, along with the other FCS schools, will be required to pay $180,000 this year and between $25,000 and $300,000, which the NCAA will deduct from the funds it provides to the school. Helping to pay for that will be a 12-game football schedule the FCS is expected to add in future years. The final decision on the extra game will be made in the last week of June. The settlement is a victory for power conference schools, which easily have the resources to cover the money and compete in what is now an unlimited bidding war. 'The approval of the House settlement agreement represents a significant milestone for the meaningful support of our student-athletes and a pivotal step toward establishing long-term sustainability for college sports, two of the Southeastern Conference's top priorities,' SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey said. 'As the journey to modernize collegiate sports continues, we remain focused on identifying and implementing innovative opportunities for our student-athletes across all sports while maintaining the core values that make collegiate athletics uniquely meaningful.' While it's not clear how it will all play out, McNeese says it expects to pivot with whatever comes next.
