Following the House v. NCAA settlement, which allows Division I institutions to share revenue directly with athletes, and the growth of NIL activity, universities are under growing financial pressure to find new sources of revenue. Some collegiate athletic operations are now turning to private capital and commercial partners, placing ticketing, sponsorship, licensing, and media operations into affiliated limited liability companies (LLCs) and other separate entities. This three-part series examines the privacy and data governance implications of the trend.

Part 1, Offsides on Data (available here), uses the University of Utah’s "Crimson Brand Partners" model to examine when key legislation, FERPA and HIPAA, apply, continue to apply, or do not reach an affiliate’s independent activities.

Part 2, Next Play (available here), turns to examine the additional privacy regimes and commercialization risks, with practical recommendations for university counsel.

Part 3, Home-Field Rules (below), compares Kentucky’s public-affiliate model and addresses structural choices for public and private universities. It explains how Kentucky’s Champions Blue, LLC differs from Utah’s for-profit venture in ownership, functions, data control, and public accountability, and why those differences matter under FERPA, HIPAA, state consumer privacy laws, and public-records statutes. It then sets out the authority, governance, and tax questions that universities should resolve before forming an athletics entity, with practical recommendations for university counsel.

Article overview

• Champions Blue: a different kind of athletics LLC
• Two models, different legal starting points
• Privacy, public records, and the limits of exemptions
• Building the structure: public and private universities
• Key recommendations for university counsel