USHE board trims Utah State athletics fee increase, approves smaller one-year bump
Utah State University’s push for a significant increase in student athletics fees was scaled back on March 27 as the Utah Board of Higher Education approved a smaller, one-year increase of about $9.91 after raising concerns about cost, equity and the long-term sustainability of college athletics funding.
University leaders argued the increase was critical to support Utah State’s move to the Pac-12 in July and to preserve free student access to games. But after nearly an hour of discussion, the board rejected a much larger proposal of $29.72 as approved by the USU Student Fee Board, and instead adopted the commissioner’s more conservative recommendation.
The decision highlights a growing tension at Utah State: how to fund a more competitive athletics program in a power conference environment without increasing the financial burden on students or relying on a model state leaders openly questioned as “unsustainable.”
Utah State President Brad L. Mortensen, USUSA President Brandon Sorensen and Board of Trustees Chair Tessa White presented the proposal, defending a broader tuition and fee package for the 2026-27 academic year. While most of the proposal moved forward without issue, athletics quickly became the focal point.
Utah System of Higher Education Deputy Commissioner Nate Talley outlined the original request, which included a $59.44 increase in athletics fees — a roughly 25.78% jump — alongside a $20.92 increase for USU Campus Recreation, both the total increase over two semesters.
Board members instead approved a significantly smaller increase, ultimately landing at about $9.91, while also scaling back the campus recreation request to align more closely with other institutions.
Throughout the discussion, Utah State leaders emphasized the athletics increase was intended as a temporary measure, a one-year bridge as the university builds out new revenue streams tied to its move into the Pac-12.
“We know that we need to do a pretty big transformation with athletics,” White said. “We’re trying to keep the plane flying while we rebuild it. And so, a one-year, one-time fee increase would give us the time that we need to do that.”
Mortensen echoed that approach, pointing to efforts to expand revenue through ticketing, sponsorships, concerts and other uses of athletic facilities. He acknowledged Utah State currently relies heavily on institutional support — roughly $22 million — to fund athletics and said the university is working to reduce that reliance over time.
“That’s been the model of how USU has funded athletics for a long time,” Mortensen said. “That’s one of the things that we’re charging our athletic director to look at. It might not be like a direct state subsidy … but it is university funds that could be used for other things.”
That admission became a focal point for the board.
Members questioned whether it was appropriate to ask students to contribute more when such a large portion of the athletics budget is already supported by university funds. Board member Steve Neeleman described the current system bluntly.
“I’ve been fairly vocal about my concern that the current athletic model is unsustainable,” Neeleman said. “All of this is just band-aids on a gushing wound. I wish that we could come up with a better solution long-term to make these programs sustainable financially.”
That concern extended beyond Utah State. Board members repeatedly referenced broader state and national trends, including conference realignment and rising costs, as evidence that the current college athletics model may not be viable long term. Along with Utah State’s move to the Pac-12, Southern Utah and Utah Tech are in the process of joining the Big Sky, while Utah Valley is set to move to the Big West.
The idea that this was a “one-time” increase also drew skepticism. Board members pushed back on whether increases like this ever truly disappear, warning that similar requests are likely to return.
“I don’t think the NCAA has done their job honestly providing insight,” Neeleman said. “It does sound like the Utah State team has done some good due diligence with the survey and speaking to what is important to the students up there. But I’m just telling you, we’re going to be back here every single year having the same discussion unless we fix this model.”
Despite those concerns, the board acknowledged Utah State’s position, particularly its emphasis on student experience.
Mortensen said 63% of students used their access to football or basketball games over the past year, while 85% participated in campus recreation. Sorensen added that a student survey drew nearly 5,000 responses in less than 24 hours, with about 95% supporting the athletics fee increase to preserve free student ticketing.
“We’ve seen such an increased sense of belonging [and] mental health in going to these athletic games,” Sorensen said.
White reinforced that point, warning that shifting away from a fee-based model could significantly impact attendance.
“If you have to start charging for student tickets this year, those numbers will drop dramatically,” she said. “We’re not a school that has a lot of money. So, whether it comes out of the fees or whether students have to pay by ticket, I think this is the better model to go off of for this year.”
Board members raised the possibility of moving toward a user-based model where students pay directly for tickets rather than funding access through fees. Mortensen said Utah State has not fully modeled that approach but acknowledged it as a potential alternative if fee increases are limited.
“We would consider that,” he said. “We would start conversations with our students and our HURD leadership right away to see what we could do to generate some more revenue.”
The same balancing act appeared in discussions around campus recreation. Utah State proposed a $20.92 increase to support wages, maintenance and expanded programming at the Aggie Recreation Center, which employs about 200 student workers. The board reduced that figure to about $8, citing the need for parity with increases approved at other state institutions.
The emphasis on parity and on consistency across the state played a significant role in the final outcome. Board members were not just evaluating Utah State’s request in isolation but weighing it against similar proposals from other universities navigating their own financial pressures.
In the end, the board’s decision reflected a compromise.
Utah State secured a modest increase to help support its transition into the Pac-12 and maintain free student access to athletics in the short term. But the reduction from its original request made clear that future increases will face significant scrutiny.
In a written statement to The Utah Statesman, a representative from Utah State Athletics acknowledged the complexity of the issue.
“USHE discussed several topics related to the funding of athletics at Utah State and across the state,” the statement read. “We recognize that this is a complex issue and look forward to continued dialogue on these matters.”
For students, the decision preserves the current model, at least for now. For the university, it underscores a more difficult reality.
Utah State is entering a new era of athletics that demands greater financial investment. But as the meeting showed, there is no clear consensus on how that investment should be funded — or how long students will continue to play a central role in supporting it.
Until that question is answered, the debate that played out in this recent meeting is unlikely to be the last.