College Athletics Can’t Afford a “Two CEOs” Model

Collegiate athletics is moving quickly into a new operating era. Revenue sharing, NIL oversight, roster management, commercial rights, sponsorship strategy, media opportunities, donor expectations and student-athlete support are all part of one increasingly complex business model.

That’s why so many institutions are exploring new structures, including affiliated entities and LLCs. “NewCo” models are being designed to create more flexibility and commercial discipline. These models can make sense. In fact, they may be necessary for some athletic departments trying to compete in a market that looks less like the old collegiate model and more like a fast-moving sports enterprise. But structure alone won’t solve the problem.

A NewCo can create opportunities, and it can create confusion. If it’s layered on top of higher education’s longstanding silo problem, it has the potential to fail before it ever delivers the agility institutions are hoping for.

While everyone is focused on risks around commercialization, they should also be considering the risk of fragmented leadership and decision making.

Higher Education Already Has a Silo Problem

Colleges and universities are complex by design. Academic affairs, student affairs, advancement, athletics and auxiliary operations often have different reporting lines, different priorities and different measures of success. For years, siloed decision-making could be inefficient without being existential. A delayed approval process, a disconnected budget conversation or a lack of coordination between departments could slow progress, but the operating model generally held together.

College athletics no longer has that margin for error.

The post-House environment demands faster decisions, clearer controls and more coordinated execution. Athlete compensation must connect to financial reporting. NIL strategy must connect to compliance. Donor strategy must connect to institutional priorities. Commercial partnerships must connect to brand protection. Roster decisions must connect to budget capacity. Revenue generation must connect to the broader athletics strategy.

Interdependent functions should not be treated as independent workstreams. That’s why a NewCo or LLC structure can’t simply be a new box on an org chart. It has to be a governance model with clear authority, clear reporting lines and clear ownership.

Yes, institutions need more sophisticated commercial infrastructure. They need people who understand sponsorship strategy, media rights, fan data, facility monetization, premium seating, athlete marketing and brand partnerships. They also need financial discipline, speed and creativity. But they also need a governance structure that includes responsibility for how all those pieces fit together.

The “Two Leaders” Problem

Some emerging models appear to place the athletic director and a chief commercialization or growth officer as peers in a dual-leadership structure. The idea is understandable: Let the AD focus on athletics operations and competition while a commercialization leader focuses on revenue growth. On paper, that may look efficient; but in practice, it can create a dangerous split.

When the AD and commercialization leader are peers, who owns the final decision when revenue goals conflict with competitive priorities? Who resolves tension between donor expectations and roster strategy? Who determines whether a commercial opportunity creates compliance, brand or Title IX concerns? Who is accountable when revenue projections do not materialize, expenses continue to risk or the athlete compensation strategy creates unintended consequences?

If two people are in charge, no one is truly in charge. A structure that diffuses responsibility may feel collaborative, but it can make it harder to identify who owns outcomes. And when no one clearly owns the outcome, risk increases.

Why Some Institutions are Looking to Pro Sports

As universities are moving toward NewCo models, it’s important to look outside higher education for examples of how to structure a modern sports enterprise. And naturally, professional sports organizations are becoming the comparison point.

The idea behind a dual-leadership model didn’t emerge out of nowhere. NFL, NBA and MLB franchises have long operated with distinct leadership structures In those environments, it’s common to see a division between commercial operations and the sporting side. For example:

• A president or CEO responsible for revenue generation, sponsorships, ticketing, fan engagement and business operations
• A general manager or head of football/basketball operations responsible for roster management, recruiting, player personnel and competitive strategy

There is logic behind that structure. Running the commercial side of a modern sports enterprise requires a fundamentally different skillset than managing competitive operations. As college athletics becomes more commercialized, it’s understandable why universities are exploring whether parts of that model could translate into the collegiate environment. And in some cases, it may be necessary.

Where the Pro Comparison Starts to Break Down

The challenge is that college athletics is not professional sports (at least not entirely). Professional franchises operate within mature governance systems that include:

• Clearly defined ownership structures
• Collective bargaining agreements
• League-wide operating rules
• Sophisticated financial reporting
• Salary cap systems
• And established accountability mechanisms

Roles, authority and reporting lines are generally well understood because the broader business model itself is stable. Teams understand the rules of engagement. Revenue-sharing structures are negotiated. Spending controls exist. Owners, executives, players and leagues all understand where authority sits and what guardrails govern the system Most importantly, professional sports leagues are generally not trying to outspend themselves through loopholes that undermine the economics of the entire system.

That is one of the biggest differences between professional sports and the current collegiate environment.

Professional sports compete aggressively, but they do so within a framework designed to preserve the long-term sustainability of the enterprise. There are mechanisms in place intended to prevent organizations from destroying the economics of the league in pursuit of short-term competitive advantage.

College athletics currently has the opposite dynamic. Institutions are simultaneously searching for new revenue, plugging a $20M hit to their budgets and redirecting existing revenue to above-the-cap NIL activations — even while publicly acknowledging the current model is financially unsustainable.

As one sports investment executive recently told me, “It is difficult to find another industry where organizations are so creative in finding ways to make their own businesses less profitable.” That observation may sound harsh, but it captures the core governance problem facing college athletics today.

The pro models work because commercial strategy and competitive strategy operate within systems built around discipline and sustainability. College athletics is trying to build those systems in real time while simultaneously restructuring its business model, navigating legal uncertainty and layering commercialization efforts into institutions that were never originally designed to operate this way.

A dual-leadership structure in professional sports works because the governance environment surrounding it is highly centralized and highly defined. In college athletics, some institutions are attempting to replicate the org chart before they have established the guardrails that make the org chart sustainable. And without those guardrails, a dual-leadership model can quickly become less about specialization and more about fragmented accountability that silo-managed institutions are famous for.

A Better Model for Today

None of this means institutions should avoid commercialization or reject outside expertise. In many cases, athletic departments absolutely need more sophisticated revenue operations, stronger financial discipline and leadership with professional sports experience.

The issue is governance. Right now, the better model for most institutions is not a fully separated “two CEOs” structure. It’s an integrated model in which the athletic director remains the accountable executive over the athletics enterprise, while commercialization, operations and finance leaders operate underneath a unified chain of command. That means:

• A chief commercialization or revenue officer should absolutely exist,
• A COO or operational leader may be necessary, and
• Finance and analytics capabilities need to be elevated.

That expertise should have a larger seat at the table than ever before. But those functions should operate as coordinated verticals within the same enterprise strategy (even if in separate entities), not as competing power centers with unclear authority.

The athletic director should remain responsible for balancing competitive priorities, institutional risk, athlete compensation strategy, donor relationships, league expectations, compliance exposure and financial sustainability. And that’s not because the AD personally owns every decision, but because someone has to own how all the decisions connect together. That structure creates something college athletics desperately needs right now: a single point of accountability.

Evolving Toward a More Professional Model

Over time, institutions can evolve into structures that look much more like professional sports organizations. That evolution is probably inevitable if college athletics continues moving toward centralized enforcement and more formalized labor structures. But we’re not there yet.

Pro sports didn’t start with fragmented authority and figure out governance later. The guardrails came first. League structures matured over decades, financial systems evolved, collective bargaining agreements clarified authority and spending, and accountability mechanisms became institutionalized.

That means universities should focus first on building the following:

• Centralized financial visibility with real-time forecasting, cash flow management and scenario planning
• Formal decision rights so leadership teams know exactly who owns revenue, spending, compliance and risk decisions
• Clear escalation procedures when competitive pressures conflict with financial sustainability or institutional priorities
• Shared KPIs that align commercial success with operational discipline instead of rewarding siloed performance
• Governance frameworks that treat athletics less like a campus department and more like a complex operating enterprise

That also requires a shift in leadership mindset. For years, many athletic directors were primarily expected to be relationship managers, fundraisers and stewards of competitive success. Those skills still matter, but the role is rapidly evolving into something much closer to a CEO position. Today’s ADs are increasingly expected to oversee enterprise-level strategy, financial performance, risk management, commercialization, talent acquisition and organizational alignment — all while operating inside the confines of higher education.

The institutions that adapt the fastest will be the ones where the tone at the top becomes more operationally disciplined, more financially sophisticated and more business-minded without losing sight of the institution’s broader mission.

The Bottom Line

NewCo structures are not inherently good or bad. College athletics clearly needs more commercial sophistication, stronger operational discipline and leadership teams capable of navigating a far more complex financial environment. But institutions shouldn’t confuse commercialization with organizational maturity.

Right now, too many schools are racing toward professional sports-style org charges before they have built the governance infrastructure required to support them. They’re layering commercialization onto systems that already struggle with siloed decision-making, fragmented accountability and unclear authority. That’s a dangerous combination.

The schools that succeed in this next era won’t necessarily be the ones with the boldest LLC strategy. They’ll be the ones that can integrate revenue generation, athlete compensation, compliance, team operations and institutional oversight into a single coordinated enterprise strategy. But until the infrastructure matures alongside it, institutions should be careful about adopting a “two CEOs” model that assumes those systems already exist. Commercialization may be the future of college athletics, but fragmentation can’t be.

James Moore’s Collegiate Athletics CPAs and consultants can help institutions evaluate the business, operational and financial implications of NewCo and commercialization strategies within the realities of their existing culture and governance structure. As athletic departments evolve into more complex operating enterprises, we help leadership teams build the financial visibility, reporting structures, operational discipline and strategic roadmaps needed to make informed business decisions while building the plane in flight.

All content provided in this article is for informational purposes only. Matters discussed in this article are subject to change. For up-to-date information on this subject please contact a James Moore professional. James Moore will not be held responsible for any claim, loss, damage or inconvenience caused as a result of any information within these pages or any information accessed through this site.