Governing from the Sidelines Is No Longer Enough

Intercollegiate athletics is changing at a breathtaking pace. Recent profiles of Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti, in the New York Times and the Sports Business Journal, offer a useful illustration. At the Big Ten, Pettiti is offering a series of proposals ranging from an expanded college playoff scheme to new approaches to governance and potential outside investment. This philosophy seems to be, “move fast, try something different, and accept the criticism that may follow.” As one person interviewed said about implementation of Petitti’s ideas: “You need efficiency, and you can’t go talk to your 18 moms and dads every time you want to get a new set of pencils in the office.”¹

To be sure, innovation is necessary in higher education, and college athletics certainly needs new ideas. For example, a recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that 94 percent of college athletic programs spent more money than they generated.² Conference realignment; private-equity money; media agreements; revenue sharing; athletes’ name, image, and likeness deals; and the growing influence of other commercial interests are reshaping college sports.

But the speed, scale, and commercial significance of these changes raise a fundamental governance question: Who is responsible for determining whether such “innovation” in athletics is in the long-term interests and sustainability of colleges and universities?

For higher education governing boards, that question is becoming impossible to ignore.

Today’s Landscape

These days, conference commissioners, presidents, chancellors, athletics directors, media partners, private investors, and other stakeholders are increasingly determining the future structure and economics of college sports.

When a president participates in an athletics-conference decision concerning playoff expansion, use of outside capital, media rights, revenue distribution, or a new sports governance structure, the implications can extend far beyond athletics. Those decisions can affect hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues and expenses, create long-term contractual obligations, reshape institutional risk, influence the health and academic progress of student athletes, alter institutional reputation, and determine whether colleges and universities can continue supporting broad-based athletics programs for both men and women.

The governance problem becomes even more significant because authority over college athletics has increasingly migrated beyond the campus. Conferences, the NCAA, courts, Congress, media companies, private capital, and commercial partners all exert influence over decisions affecting institutions.

Fiduciary accountability, however, has not migrated with that authority. Amid these consequential athletics decisions, one group is too often missing from the conversation: members of the institutional governing board.

Although the decisions I’ve cited may involve external stakeholders, they are no longer simply athletics decisions. They are decisions about institutional strategy, finance, risk, mission, and reputation—the critical matters governing boards have a fiduciary obligation to oversee.

The Governing Board’s Role

A governing board is always accountable for overseeing the institution regardless of where a consequential decision originated. Boards therefore cannot afford to learn about major athletics decisions only after conference negotiations have concluded, financial expectations have changed, or institutional commitments have effectively been made.

Boards need to regain meaningful oversight—not operational control. The issue is not whether boards should negotiate playoff formats, television contracts, or conference schedules. They should not. Those are management responsibilities. In most circumstances trustees should not substitute their judgment for that of presidents, athletics directors, or conference commissioners.

But delegation of responsibility is not delegation of accountability. College sports may be governed increasingly through conferences and national organizations, but colleges and universities remain accountable for the choices they make within that system.

The emerging governance challenge is therefore straightforward: Boards may be accountable for decisions they neither make nor meaningfully influence. That is not an argument for trustees to run college athletics. It is an argument for boards to govern intercollegiate sports.

Put simply: In this rapidly changing environment, governing from the sidelines is no longer enough.

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 in Washington, DC.

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 college athletics.

Register today to join the conversation.

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

1. Ben Portnoy, “The Pettiti Paradox: Big Ten Commissioner Has Built a Career Pushing Convention,” Sports Business Journal, August 24, 2026, https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2026/08/24/the-petitti-paradox-big-ten-commissioner-has-built-a-career-pushing-convention-2/?issueId=4L7ZXLIMMJAZ5MCOLN7NHGNEQM.
2. U.S. Government Accountability Office, College Athletics: Most Programs Spend More Than They Generate in Revenue, July 14, 2026, 1, 9, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-26-108640.pdf.