Accreditation Makes Athletics a Board Responsibility

In a recent episode of the Future U Podcast, Jeff Selingo and Michael Horn described athletics departments as “shadow universities”—self-contained campus entities with their own systems, chief financial officers, academic advisors, fundraising arms, and multimillion-dollar budgets. But athletic departments are not separate from the institution, and that distinction matters for governing boards, especially for purposes of accreditation.¹

Institutional accrediting agencies evaluate colleges and universities as integrated enterprises, and their standards encompass mission, financial stewardship, student success, integrity, risk, and executive accountability. Athletics touches every one of those responsibilities. Consequently, accreditation standards create clear governance expectations. Boards must ensure that the institution’s athletics programs are appropriately overseen as part of the institution’s mission and operations.

At its basic level, accreditation is necessary for an institution to access federal funds, including student financial aid. But accreditation also matters because it is the primary quality test for colleges, universities, and academic programs. It provides public assurance that an institution operates with integrity, meets recognized standards for academic quality and student achievement, and has credible processes for verifying its educational effectiveness. For boards, accreditation is more than a compliance exercise—it is a vital tool for continuous improvement, institutional accountability, and protection of the institution’s reputation and future.

The Risks Are Real

Institutions have risked their accreditation over issues related to oversight of their athletic departments. In 2012, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) placed Penn State on warning following a scandal involving a football coach convicted of sexually abusing student athletes. MSCHE cited the trustees for failing to provide effective oversight of the administration and institutional integrity.²

In 2015, the Commission on Colleges and Universities, formerly known as the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, placed the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) on probation following a student-athlete academic fraud scandal. The commission found UNC out of compliance with core operating principles, including control of intercollegiate athletics.³

Excessive athletic spending can also result in sanctions. In 2024, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities sanctioned North Idaho College (NIC) in large part because an unsustainable surge in athletic spending created a multimillion-dollar budget deficit. According to the accreditor’s report, “In addition to its impacts on participatory governance, the decision placed a multimillion-dollar burden on NIC’s budget and a substantial hidden tax on NIC’s academic and student support services.”⁴

Now, the Risks Are Higher

The ongoing transformation of college athletics makes effective board oversight more urgent. Athletic spending is at a new high, and a recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that 94 percent of National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I college athletics programs spent more money than they generated.⁵ New team roster limits and rules governing third-party name, image, and likeness agreements add further complexity. These changes reach beyond athletic operations into institutional budgeting, compliance, and student opportunity.

For governing boards, the central question is how the institution will sustain increasing athletic commitments while advancing its educational mission. Boards should examine the assumptions behind athletic revenue projections, the sources supporting new expenditures, and the consequences if anticipated revenues fall short. When institutions consider increasing subsidies from non-athletic sources, redirecting fundraising, or reducing some sports programs to remain competitive in others, trustees must assess the effects on academic priorities, financial stability, and opportunities for students across the institution.

The legal and policy environment also remains unsettled. Litigation challenging revenue distribution and spending on female athletes is underway under provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act on September 28, 2026, but the legislation still awaits action in the U.S. House of Representatives. Even if it does pass the House and is signed into law, it leaves a host of questions unanswered. Governing boards need regular briefings from institutional leadership and legal counsel, along with financial plans that account for changing requirements. At the same time, institutions can’t wait for a stable national framework to make decisions affecting the future of the institution.⁶

As always, student success must remain central to trustees’ institutional oversight. Board members should ask how compensation arrangements, roster decisions, athletic commitments, and the transfer portal affect access to education, academic progress, student well-being, and equitable participation. They should expect clear accountability from the athletic department through the president, reliable reporting, and coordination among athletics, academic affairs, finance, and legal counsel.

The Connection to Accreditation

These new developments in the athletics realm bring the board’s strategic responsibility for accreditation into sharper focus. Boards need evidence that athletics operates within the institution’s financial controls, academic expectations, and governance structures. As the business of college sports changes, trustees must ensure that institutional mission continues to guide its decisions.

Accreditation is not the only reason for boards to oversee athletics, but it clarifies the obligation. An institution cannot claim sound governance, financial stewardship, or commitment to students while treating athletics as an exception to institutional standards. Boards fulfill their fiduciary role when they integrate athletics into regular oversight of mission, strategy, finance, risk, and presidential performance. In today’s rapidly changing environment, that is not interference in operations. It is responsible governance.

Taking the Next Step

Given the governance imperative, AGB will convene trustees, presidents, chancellors, athletics directors, chief financial officers, foundation leaders, and other industry experts for The Governance Challenge in College Athletics: Mission, Finance, and Board Oversight in a New Era on November 10–11, 2026, in Washington, DC.

Act quickly! The hotel block closes on October 20.

Attendees will have the opportunity to discuss centering athletics in institutional mission, the emerging financial strategies and risks, and how to navigate the increasingly crowded and complex set of decision-makers jockeying to shape intercollegiate athletics.

Register today to join the conversation.

Jackie Gardina is AGB’s senior director of institution and system programs.

1. Jeff Selingo and Michael Horn, hosts, Future U, episode 227, “Athletics Departments Have Become ‘Shadow Universities,’” June 3, 2026, 49 min., 1 sec., https://www.futureupodcast.com/episodes/athletics-departments-have-become-shadow-universities/.
2. “Pennsylvania State University, The,” Accreditation Actions, Middle States Commission on Higher Education, August 6, 2012, https://www.msche.org/institution/0544/?ipf_action_paged=5.
3. Matt Norlander, “Academic Scandal Leads to Probation for UNC by Accrediting Agency,” CBS Sports, June 11, 2015, https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/academic-scandal-leads-to-probation-for-unc-by-accrediting-agency/.
4. “NIC to Restructure Athletics to Achieve Sustainability,” 2024 News Release Archive, North Idaho College, December 4, 2024, https://www.nic.edu/newsroom/archives/2024/nic-to-restructure-athletics-to-achieve-sustainability-.php.
5. “College Athletics: Most Programs Spend More Than They Generate in Revenue,” GAO-26-108640, U.S. Government Accountability Office, July 14, 2026, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108640.
6. Richard Ramos, “Former UC Davis Equestrian Athletes Sue School Over Alleged Title IX Violations,” CBS News, September 29, 2026, https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/former-uc-davis-equestrian-athletes-sue-title-ix/. Michael McCann, “The Protect College Sports Act Could Bring Both Order and Chaos,” Sportico, September 16, 2026, https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2026/protect-college-sports-act-legal-analysis-1234945134/.