It was a question that begged to be asked—even if the College Sports Commission made clear it wouldn’t be answered.
The new entity created by the five collegiate power conferences to oversee athlete NIL compensation, following court approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, will be a one-way street when it comes to its much-touted aim of fostering a “transparent” future for college sports.
“The CSC won’t be sharing compensation information for its employees,” a spokesperson said when asked by Sportico about CEO Bryan Seeley’s salary.
On one hand, the rebuff is not exactly shocking. The CSC is a for-profit, limited liability company, and such entities—if not publicly traded—are under no legal duty to open their books. On the other hand, this is an entity built on promises of openness and accountability, assuming a role that directly affects the rights and compensation of college athletes. The commission oversees all NIL deals over $600 involving athletes and entities outside their schools.
Moreover, as Sportico has previously reported, the CSC has assumed the mien of a nonprofit and suggested it plans to act accordingly.
If it were to be a 501(c) federal charity—like the NCAA, conferences, athletic foundations or private universities—it would be required to disclose Seeley’s compensation on its annual tax returns, which are public.
(That’s how we know CSC’s newly-named operations chief, John Bramlette, made $214,709 in 2023 while working as COO for Washington Nationals Philanthropies.)
Transparency would also be mandatory if the CSC was part of a public university, which would fall under state sunshine laws. Even publicly traded for-profit companies must disclose executive pay in filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
As noted, the CSC is under no obligation to report employee salaries. But should it anyway? So far, the individuals and institutions behind the CSC have remained uniformly silent on that matter.
Requests for comment sent to the five power conferences and the 11 college athletic directors on the NCAA’s Implementation Committee all went unanswered.
While acknowledging the CSC is not under a legal obligation to disclose, sports lawyer Darren Heitner, who represents a number of college athletes, says it should lead by example.
“Disclosing financials would foster trust and demonstrate a commitment to accountability, especially given the significant authority the CSC wields in enforcing rules that significantly impact athletes livelihoods,” Heitner told Sportico in a text message.
To be sure, college athletes are also benefiting from a growing trend toward nondisclosure, as state legislatures increasingly move to exempt revenue-sharing agreements between players and programs from open records laws.
Yet within the executive ranks of intercollegiate athletics, Seeley and the CSC hold a uniquely opaque position when juxtaposed against NCAA officials, athletic directors and conference commissioners, all of whose take-home pay is made public in one form or another.
While not necessarily standard practice, it is also not entirely unprecedented for for-profit companies to reveal financial information they aren’t legally obligated to. In recent years, a movement toward so-called “pay transparency” has gained momentum, particularly in the tech sphere, led by companies like the social media management platform Buffer and crowdfunding site Kickstarter.
Without voluntary disclosure, there is still the chance that a few financial breadcrumbs might eventually surface. The five conferences that created and fund the CSC could, in theory, report some level of financial involvement in their IRS filings—potentially under sections related to “disregarded entities” or investments.
For instance, the Big Ten Conference includes the book value of its investment in the Big Ten Network’s holding company in its publicly available tax returns. Similarly, the NCAA has reported both income and asset value for limited liability companies it controls, such as NIT LLC and College Football Officiating LLC.