College Athletics: What Governing Boards Need to Know Now

Intercollegiate athletics are a highly visible part of many colleges and universities that can advance an institution’s mission. For example, a successful athletics program might offer scholarships that provide pathways to degrees for student athletes. A winning team could enhance an institution’s reputation among donors or boost enrollment of prospective students. However, as AGB’s publication Risk Management: An Accountability Guide for University and College Boards describes, there are also compliance, ethics, and financial risks associated with intercollegiate athletics. For example, a recruiting violation, failing to protect the welfare of student athletes, noncompliance with Title VI student aid or Title IX non-discrimination requirements, or mismanagement of athletic funds could damage an institution’s ability to fulfill its mission. Governing boards of institutions, systems, and related foundations need to understand and provide oversight of these and other types of risks, but how?

As the AGB Board of Directors’ Statement on Governing Boards’ Responsibilities for Intercollegiate Athletics explains, operational authority for athletics is delegated to the institution’s chief executive and director of athletics. Governing boards should have clear policies defining that delegation of authority and regularly review how the chief executive manages athletics in alignment with institutional values and goals. However, governing boards should not assume that delegation limits their responsibility; they must remain informed about the policies, processes, costs, and other legal and regulatory requirements of their institution’s intercollegiate athletics programs.

Trustees have a fiduciary duty to protect the mission of their organization; to respond to the rapidly evolving challenges of intercollegiate athletics, governing boards need to provide strategic oversight and be proactive thought partners to the chief executive. This includes being aware of the rules affecting their institution, regularly receiving updates from the chief executive or director of athletics, and asking informed questions.

A Shifting Landscape

Institution, system, and foundation governing boards must be aware that the legal and regulatory environment for intercollegiate athletics is changing rapidly. For example, a presidential executive order in July directed colleges and universities to expand scholarships and provide the maximum number of roster spots in women’s and non-revenue sports that are permitted under NCAA rules. Earlier this year, a federal judge approved the House v. NCAA settlement agreement that allows institutions to pay student athletes directly for their name, image, and likeness (NIL). NIL refers to the ability of student athletes to profit from their personal brand through activities such as endorsements, social media promotions, appearances, autographs, and merchandise sales. The settlement also includes provisions for revenue sharing, scholarships, and the sizes of team rosters. It applies to those institutions involved in the House v. NCAA case, plus other Division I institutions that choose to opt-in to the agreement.

In this environment, how do board members provide strategic oversight, manage risk, and fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities?

NIL

The recent NIL changes are a notable example of the transforming landscape of intercollegiate athletics, but to be effective stewards of their organizations, board members should follow the same principles that they apply to other sectors of the institution—delegate operational authority while remaining engaged, strategic partners with the administration.

“When it comes to name, image, and likeness, I think that it’s natural that a lot of trustees are intensely interested in these things,” noted Cameron Howell, secretary of the university and board of trustees at the University of South Carolina. “NIL is happening at a rate that is very, very rapid, and by that, I mean not just that the rules are changing, but that the agreements that are being made are happening with some rapidity. It is not wise or good, in my opinion, for board members to expect that they’re going to know every detail of every one of those deals.”

Instead, Howell recommended that boards provide careful strategic oversight. “I think what’s good is for a board to hear from the director of athletics what the process is, what the process is going to look like, what the financial impact is going to be, and that those kinds of reports or updates are provided on a reasonable timeline,” he said.

Questions for Boards

To remain informed and provide effective strategic oversight, board members should consider:

• How is information about NIL, revenue sharing, and other athletics issues conveyed to the board? How frequently? Which committee oversees athletics?
• For campus and system boards, how do we protect and monitor the admissions standards, academic progress, and welfare of our student athletes?
• Are our policies aligned with current laws and NCAA or NAIA rules?
• Should our board draft or revise our policies to clarify our level of involvement and risk tolerance?
• How do the recent developments impact our fundraising and donor relations? Do they change how we align these efforts with other priorities?
• If we have an institutionally related foundation, does the athletics department collaborate closely with the foundation to ensure that prospective donors are properly stewarded and that gift funds are used for charitable purposes in compliance with donor intent?
• How are we supporting ongoing education for members of the board, staff, and other stakeholders? Are we educating these groups about managing risks and best practices in our athletics programs?

For more, see the AGB FAQ Questions Boards Should Be Asking: Intercollegiate Athletics.

Conclusion

As the environment for intercollegiate athletics continues to evolve, board members must remain strategic partners with their chief executives and administrative leaders to support their student athletes, manage risk, and effectively lead their institutions. By staying informed and providing oversight, boards can help ensure athletics programs are a source of pride and integrity for their institutions.

“We’re talking about big changes in revenues and expenses that are coming, that are going to look very much unlike what boards are used to seeing,” Howell explained. “So helping boards understand what those changes are going to look like and what the risks are at the 30,000-foot level, that’s, I think, the appropriate level of focus.”

Multiple sessions at AGB’s upcoming Foundation Leadership Forum on February 1-3, 2026, in San Diego, the Board Professionals Conference on March 26-28, 2026, and the National Conference on Trusteeship on March 28-30, 2026, in Denver will explore the changing landscape of intercollegiate athletics, providing useful insights for foundation, system, and campus board members, chief executives, and other higher education leaders.

AGB used AGB Board Bot^TM in the development of this blog post to help summarize recommendations from our extensive library of content.