Big Ten Conference
Legal name: The Big Ten Conference Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 363640583
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Rosemont, IL, USA
- Phone
- 8476961010
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,468,470,129
- Expenses
- $1,453,340,493
- Assets
- $280,734,650
- Liabilities
- $56,875,563
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
33 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- JAMES E DELANY (FORMER COMMISSIONER): $5,824,743 total reported compensation
- ANTHONY PETITTI (COMMISSIONER): $4,535,832 total reported compensation
- CAROL FOLT (DIRECTOR (START 8/2/24)): $2,957,636 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Other parties that support the Online Services by providing advertisements or other services, such as allowing you to share content or tracking aggregate website usage statistics, may also use these technologies to collect similar information when you use the Online Services (such as websites and emails) or other parties' services. Those parties may also use these technologies, along with activity information they collect, to recognize you across the devices you use, such as a mobile device and a laptop or other computer. The Conference does not control these technologies and their use is governed by the privacy policies of parties using such technologies. Your browser may be initially set t.
What it reported doing in 2024
The conference collects revenue on behalf of the member schools from football and basketball television contracts, bowl games, football championship game, and basketball tournaments, as well as grants from the national collegiate athletic association (ncaa), and remits the revenue to the member schools' athletic department.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 95% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 96
- Accountability: 37
- Sustainability: 36
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 96.4%; rating input score 96
- Program expense ratio: 99.1%; rating input score 99
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.2%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 96.4% of revenue deployed · 99.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4B in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $5.8M · 33 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $12.4M reported
- Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 28 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 38 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.