Tiger Athletic Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
721004960
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Phone
(225)578-4823
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$123,859,705
Expenses
$116,193,388
Assets
$497,147,059
Liabilities
$175,297,198

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

Leadership & pay

46 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW BORMAN (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
  • ALICIA VIDRINE (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT & CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER)
  • ROBERT B ROSS (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT & CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER)
  • KAITLYN VINCEK COX (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT & CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER)
  • ROSS VILTZ (VICE PRESIDENT OF PREMIUM SEATING)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATTHEW BORMAN (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $607,332 total reported compensation
  • DAVID HARDY (GENERAL COUNSEL): $362,362 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT B ROSS (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT & CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER): $279,996 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 assist Louisiana State University in building and maintaining a superior athletic program by providing private financial support for programs and facilities that ensure LSU student-athletes the opportunity to win in the classroom, in competition, and in life.

What it reported doing in 2024

Tiger athletic foundation (taf) assists the Louisiana state university and agricultural and mechanical college (lsu) athletic programs. Taf helped to defray the cost of more than 450 student athletes, to maintain and improve athletic facilities, and to retire present indebtedness.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 82% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $28.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • 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: 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: 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: 6.2%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.28; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 82.1% of revenue deployed · 88.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 36 of 36 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $102.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $607K · 46 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $36.1M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 10 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: 11 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.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.