Mississippi State Bulldog Club

Legal name: The Bulldog Club Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510163622
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Mississippi State, MS, US
Phone
662-325-3074
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$94,138,122
Expenses
$84,503,429
Assets
$80,928,279
Liabilities
$54,593,666

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BO MCKINNIS (PRESIDENT)
  • BRANDI LONG (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID ABNEY (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • JOSHUA MCCOWAN (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFFREY LEBBY (HEAD FOOTBALL COACH): $4,482,827 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTOPHER JANS (HEAD BASKETBALL COACH): $4,213,797 total reported compensation
  • CHRIS LEMONIS (HEAD BASEBALL COACH UNTIL 4/2025): $1,427,723 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 Mississippi State University Bulldog Club engages fans, alumni, and loyal supporters of MSU to generate financial support that benefits the overall educational and athletic experience for our student-athletes. Gifts to the Bulldog Club support scholarships, educational resources, facility enhancements, life skills development, nutrition, equipment, and other expenses associated with being a Bulldog student-athlete.

What it reported doing in 2024

Providing scholarships for student athletes, purchase and construction of athletic facilities, and other support for the Mississippi state university athletic program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 71% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.5%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 65.3%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: $47.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.2%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.67; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.3%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 59.5% of revenue deployed · 65.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $55.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $4.5M · 24 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.1M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.