Sports Authority Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822157834
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
7133085910
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports Competitions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,785,586
Expenses
$1,343,448
Assets
$18,458,590
Liabilities
$17,650,992

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JANIS BURKE (CEO (THRU 10/2024))
  • RYAN WALSH (CEO (AS OF 11/2024))

Highest reported compensation

  • JANIS BURKE (CEO (THRU 10/2024)): $245,417 total reported compensation
  • RYAN WALSH (CEO (AS OF 11/2024)): $14,575 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 sports authority foundation (saf) sponsors amateur athletic associations workshops, activities and competitions, including activities for disabled and special needs individuals. Saf also sponsor's scholarships for student athletes and amateur competitive activities. Saf participates in mentoring programs for students, teachers and coaches and assists in combating juvenile delinquency by sponsoring recreational outlets for young people.

What it reported doing in 2024

College football playoff - playoff fan central is an interactive experience that gives thousands of fans the opportunity to participate in the college football playoff national championship. The three-day, free family-friendly event, to be held at the george r. Brown convention center, will include games, clinics, pep rallies, band performances, special guest appearances, autograph signings, and exhibits celebrating college football and its history. Playoff fan central creates memories that last a lifetime.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. 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: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.4%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 68.4%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.5%; rating input score 96; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 24.8%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.74; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.96; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.4%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 50.8% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 57.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.4% of revenue deployed · 68.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $919K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $245K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $113K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.