Cowboy Athletics Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020669448
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Stillwater, OK, USA
Phone
4057442788
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Sports Associations &Training Facilities

Reported finances

Revenue
$35,816,927
Expenses
$22,561,748
Assets
$71,354,037
Liabilities
$2,393,972

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHAD WEIBERG (PRESIDENT)
  • REID SIGMON (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHAD WEIBERG (PRESIDENT): $834,889 total reported compensation
  • REID SIGMON (VICE PRESIDENT): $453,207 total reported compensation
  • KYLE WRAY (DIRECTOR): $439,191 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To support first the entire department of intercollegiate athletics at Oklahoma state university and second other educational programs at osu. [continued on schedule o] the mission of the following three wholly owned limited liability companies are as follows: osu cowboy golf, llc was formed primarily to support the Oklahoma state university men's and women's golf teams.cowboy athletic facilities, llc was formed to oversee construction activities with respect to improvements being made on real property owned by athletes and others associated with Oklahoma state university.osu cowboy dining, llc formed to provide food services to the student athletes and others associated with Oklahoma state university.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cowboy athletics, inc. (cai) provides support to the entire department of intercollegiate athletics at Oklahoma state university (osu). Cai also provides support to other educational programs at osu. These funds are provided through grants and capital asset transfers. Cowboy athletic facilities, llc, a related organization, is organized to conduct construction activities for the benefit of the university.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 48% for direct work, and 52% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 55
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.1%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 97.4%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 71.4%; rating input score 71; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 37%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.16; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.1% of revenue deployed · 97.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $22M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $835K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.