Well, this law professor at Pitt thinks it's a potential problem to have a non-profit educational institution running a pro-athletic program. I've been wondering about this myself for quite awhile. Will have to see what type of rulings come down from the IRS and then, if that happens, what the courts have to say about it.
What's the definition of a "pro" athletic program? As it relates to non-profits, simply having employees and generating revenue doesn't preclude non-profit status, and what's more relevant is how the money is spent. For the most part, it has to be reinvested into the organization and can't go to enriching shareholders/officers, etc.
In this regard, how is paying Johnny Manziel any different than paying his coach?
All the other employees of a university have some function that is directly or indirectly related to the university's educational mission. Even the groundskeeper and dormitory cook have that kind of nexus with education. With a football or basketball player the nexus is a little more tenuous.
What is Tim Albin's role in the educational mission of the University? Urban Meyer's spiritual advisor? Strength coach? Justify them, and then do the groundskeeper and dormitory cook.
For years, the folks arguing against change to NCAA athletics have insisted that athletics are a staple of the college experience, and essential to the culture of Universities, and to churning out well-rounded graduates. And now suddenly that same crew can't make the case that Caitlyn Clark contributed to the mission of the University of Iowa but a groundskeeper does? And why? Because Iowa might send the next Caitlyn Clark a W2?
Color me very, very skeptical that the social benefit of higher education is completely eliminated by a revenue share with the people who generate the revenue.
Though, I guess it's also possible that the Presidents of every P5 school just signed off on a revenue share plan and every single one of them forgot to ask their lawyers if they'd lose their non-profit status by doing so.