How/should the evolving landscape of NIL and complex professionalized system in college athletics be monitored by the NCAA and government.
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
- The University of Utah is close to reaching a private equity deal to fund its athletics programs.
- A Utah lawmaker wants to require universities to get legislative approval for private equity contracts.
- University officials did not expect the legislation and are in talks with the sponsor.
The University of Utah made a big splash last month with its intention to sign the first private equity deal in college sports.
The first-of-its-kind effort would infuse hundreds of millions of dollars into the school’s athletic programs. The university’s board of trustees unanimously voted to authorize administrators to reach an agreement with Otro Capital. After discussions with state lawmakers before the announcement, they didn’t expect any involvement from the Utah Legislature in order to move forward.
But Rep. Jason Kyle, R-Huntsville, filed a bill requiring universities to get approval from state lawmakers before signing an agreement with a private equity firm in regard to college athletics. HB297 further states that a school must also get legislative approval to renew or amend a private equity contract.
On first thought this seems smart to me. With the new landscape of college sports there will inevitably be huge money deals like this but putting control on it early seems smart.
Kyle provided little information about the impetus for the legislation.
“I think President (Taylor) Randall is doing a great job and is doing what he feels is best to keep the University of Utah competitive in athletics,” he said in a text message
“However, some of my colleagues and I feel as though we may be giving up too much in the long run for a short-term gain.”
The proposed law would apply to any private equity agreement that conveys an ownership interest in or right to share revenue that an athletics program generates; grants control over any aspect of a college sports program; or establishes a joint venture, partnership or similar entity through which a private capital firm receives direct or indirect financial returns tied to athletics revenue.
University of Utah spokesperson Rebecca Walsh said the school did not seek the legislation but is aware of it.
“University officials are in conversation with the bill sponsor to provide additional information and context,” she told the Deseret News in an email.
The Utah Legislature opened its 45-day general session Tuesday. The bill was sent to the powerful House Rules Committee, which decides whether legislation advances and which standing committee it goes to. As currently written, the bill’s effective date is May 6, 2026, should it pass.
But the measure could be moot before it gets a hearing or a vote.
Walsh said the university and Otro are on track to have a signed agreement in the “next couple of weeks.”
How would the University of Utah’s private equity deal work?
Under the private equity plan, the University of Utah Foundation would create a for-profit company called Utah Brands & Entertainment. It would be tasked with strengthening the business operations of athletics, enhancing the fan experience and growing revenues.
The foundation would be the majority owner, while Otro Capital, which describes itself as an “operator-led private equity firm with deep expertise” in sports, media and entertainment, would be the minority owner. The company would run the commercial side, including media rights, ticketing, concessions and merchandise. The athletics department would maintain control over major decisions such as hiring and firing coaches and scheduling.
The company would handle revenue sharing and NIL payments to players, but the university would decide how it’s distributed.
As currently proposed, a seven-member board headed by the university’s athletic director would govern Utah Brands & Entertainment, which would include stadium and events, production and broadcasting, hospitality, partnership and licensing, brand content and finance. Some athletic department employees would move to the entity. The university would provide four of the seven board members.
Although Otro is reportedly looking to invest $500 million, university officials would not confirm that figure. But Randall said last month it “will allow multiple millions to come into the athletic program at various points in time.”
Administrators said the university needs to be innovative in order to avoid raising student fees, cutting research funds or eliminating some or all athletic programs. Randall said the university is committed to maintaining Olympic or non-revenue sports.
“This will give our institution, particularly our athletic institution, the upside it needs to thrive in the new revenue-sharing and NIL era,” Randall said. “It also allows the other missions of our university to thrive.”
General Document Comments 0
- Here’s the core of the bill: HB297 would require Utah public universities to get approval from the state Legislature before they sign, renew, or change any private equity deal tied to college athletics, especially if the deal gives a private firm revenue rights, ownership interest, control over any part of a sports program, or creates a joint venture that profits from athletics money.
- The bill is a response to the University of Utah’s plan to partner with Otro Capital, so lawmakers can oversee big private equity contracts instead of leaving those choices only to university boards and presidents.
- The article’s main purpose is to explain the clash between the University of Utah’s fast-moving private equity deal—meant to bring in hundreds of millions for athletics—and this new bill that could slow or limit such deals by adding a political approval step.
- The article also describes how the Utah/Otro plan would work (a new for‑profit company, shared governance, private management of commercial operations) and raises the broader question of whether short‑term cash from private equity is worth the long‑term control and revenue universities might give up.
- Nice focus: “weighing risks and rewards” gives you a clear, balanced purpose and makes it easier to organize your writing.
- For rewards, you might look at things like: more money for facilities and coaches, keeping up with richer conferences, avoiding student fee hikes or cutting sports, and maybe better NIL or revenue sharing for athletes (all things the Utah deal is trying to solve).
- For risks, you could think about: giving up some control of the athletic brand to investors, pressure to chase profit over student‑athlete wellbeing, long‑term revenue sharing that might hurt future budgets, and the worry lawmakers have about “short‑term gain” vs. “too much in the long run.”
- One simple structure you could try is: paragraph 1 = what private equity in college sports is + Utah example, paragraph 2 = main rewards, paragraph 3 = main risks, paragraph 4 = your judgment about whether the trade‑off is worth it and under what rules (like bills such as HB297) it could be safer.
on the uploaded document.
0 archived comments