Charlotte Sports Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462059715
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Charlotte, NC, USA
Phone
704-644-4051
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Sports Associations &Training Facilities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$29,547,228
Expenses
$30,128,671
Assets
$20,148,844
Liabilities
$1,298,546

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

48 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Danny Morrison (Executive Director)
  • Steve Luquire (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Danny Morrison (Executive Director): $618,770 total reported compensation
  • William Pitts (Chief Operating Officer): $434,771 total reported compensation
  • Owen Godfrey (Director of Ticket Sales and Service): $186,633 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Charlotte Sports Foundation is a nonprofit dedicated to promoting the city of Charlotte, enhancing the quality of life for its residents and supporting its business community by hosting unforgettable, high-profile sporting events that reach millions of fans every year and generate millions of dollars for the Queen City.

What it reported doing in 2024

CSE was formed to foster national amateur sports competition in the greater Charlotte-Mecklenburg County area and for other charitable purposes, including, but not limited to, maximizing the positive impact of the area's economy, national image and community pride by organizing and operating the neutral-site game ("NSG "NSG Event"), Jumpman Invitational ("Jumpman "Jumpman Event"), and Ally Tipoff ("Ally Tipoff Event") sanctioned by the NCAA.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 78% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 73% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 97
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.6%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 93.7%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $34.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 40.1%; rating input score 40; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 11 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 95.6% of revenue deployed · 93.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 40 of 42 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $28.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $619K · 48 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $2.6M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.