As university athletic programs face unprecedented legal and financial pressures, Kutak Rock has launched its College Athletics and Private Capital Focus Group to help institutions navigate a shifting regulatory environment.
John Long, a nationally recognized attorney in collegiate athletics law, joined Kutak Rock in November to lead the initiative. The expansion comes as antitrust litigation, legislative changes and evolving interpretations of employment law “have handcuffed the NCAA’s ability to enforce its rules,” he said.
For decades, college athletics operated under an amateurism model that treated athletes primarily as students, with universities, conferences and the NCAA controlling compensation and enforcement. That framework has eroded under antitrust litigation, increased scrutiny over whether athletes should be classified as employees and reforms allowing compensation for name, image and likeness (NIL).
Dismantling the System
“House v. NCAA blew up and destroyed the system,” Long said.
In its 2024 ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that the NCAA’s compensation restrictions were not immune from antitrust scrutiny. The case accelerated the move toward athlete payments and revenue-sharing models, raising questions for universities under antitrust and employment law.
College athletes already receive compensation through scholarships, stipends and NIL deals. Following House v. NCAA, universities may share athletic revenue directly with athletes, who may transfer between institutions multiple times during their college careers to maximize earnings.
As a result, even the most competitive university athletic programs are operating at a deficit, Long said.
Contradictions Put Universities at Risk
Long’s practice has spanned NCAA compliance, infractions and Title IX matters. Recently, however, his work has increasingly focused on how institutions can respond when the legal foundations of college athletics — particularly the NCAA’s amateurism model — no longer hold.
“The system is straining under legal contradictions,” he said. Many universities treat athletes as employees in practice but resist that classification on paper, which creates uncertainty around institutional authority, contractual agreements and workplace protections. If universities recognize athletes as employees, they must then decide how discipline can be enforced and which contractual obligations are legally sustainable.
Currently, institutions rely on widely varying contract terms and disciplinary standards, bolstering the risk of litigation. In Colorado, Coach Deion Sanders announced this year a system that fines football players’ NIL earnings for missed practices or tardiness. Long cautioned, “If you have workplace terms and conditions, that feels a lot like employees. It’s fascinating to me that schools are still arguing these are not employees but then do this.”
Is Private Ownership the Answer?
Kutak Rock’s focus group brings together attorneys across finance, labor and employment, intellectual property, real estate and regulatory compliance to advise universities exploring whether private ownership or alternative operational structures could reduce legal risk and restore stability.
Those tensions have fueled interest from universities in public-private partnerships. Under emerging models, a university could license its intellectual property, media rights and facilities to a private entity that operates revenue-generating sports programs. The university would retain control over non-revenue programs and broader academic priorities.
In December, the University of Utah became a national test case for this model when its board of trustees approved a partnership with the private equity firm Otro Capital. The deal created a for-profit entity to manage sponsorships, NIL activities, revenue sharing and ticket sales.
While private equity may turn college sports into “a marketing charade for the university,” it may also be the only viable solution under current law, Long said. “Now that we’re here, I think we need to let the pendulum swing all the way and acknowledge student-athletes as professionals.
If private ownership prevails, he added, there would be little to prevent athletes who are not students from playing on a school’s team.
From a legal perspective, arrangements between universities and private companies raise high-stakes questions. Universities must carefully structure licensing agreements, governance provisions and exit rights to protect public assets and preserve long-term control, Long said. They must concurrently assess how employment law, collective bargaining obligations, and antitrust risk apply when athletic operations are separated from the institution.
Private investors are watching Utah closely. Major athletic programs and conferences have value similar to professional franchises, and private equity firms are exploring opportunities at both the conference and institutional levels.
Consumer and Congressional Responses
Long wondered how fans will respond to a fully professionalized college sports model. “Will consumers get tired of the charade and just watch the NFL?” he asked.
If so, the only fix to the “hornet’s nest” is for Congress to act, he said. “This would require the actual legal determination in a federal bill that students are not employees and, second, an antitrust exemption to protect universities.”
Regardless of the path forward, Long and the College Athletics and Private Capital Focus Group are certain the future of college athletics will be shaped as much by legal realities as by business or sports considerations.