It appears the Detroit News' Nolan Finley is trying to manufacture a scandal at MSU

Here we go again.

In his latest column in the The Detroit News about MSU's new approach to building a competitive athletic department, Nolan Finley drags Larry Nassar into a conversation that has nothing to do with him, turning one of the most painful times in Michigan State University’s history into a rhetorical shortcut in a debate about business structure. In my opinion, it also undercuts the seriousness of everything that he argued.

This isn’t the first time this issue has been framed by Finley through fear and worst-case comparisons. Back in February, in response to his column at the time, I wrote about this same issue and laid out both sides – the transparency concerns, yes, but also the structure, the funding realities, and the broader shift happening across college athletics.

Finley’s latest column - published Sunday - goes right back to the same narrow lane, leaning heavily on suspicion while skipping over the context that actually explains why this model exists. He, again, calls the creation of Spartan Media Ventures a surrender of public control while leaving out the details of how these systems actually work.

To recap: university presidents and athletic departments don’t operate in a vacuum; they run networks of affiliated entities all the time – foundations, research corporations, licensing arms, real estate vehicles, multimedia rights partnerships. Those structures exist because public universities operate in two worlds at once. They answer to the public, and they compete in markets that move at private-sector speed.

Boards approve strategy, then leadership builds the structure to execute it. Boards set direction. They do not run point on execution. They do not negotiate capital structures, they do not sit in on investor meetings, and they do not vote on individual deal terms as they come together. Their role is to approve the strategy, hire the people responsible for carrying it out, and then hold those people accountable over time.

That’s exactly what happened here.

The Michigan State University Board of Trustees approved Spartan Ventures. That decision opened the door for building out the pieces needed to operate in the NIL and revenue-sharing era. Forming a subsidiary to raise capital sits inside that framework. It’s not some rogue move that appeared out of nowhere.

Expecting the board to reinsert itself into every step after its approval is the very definition of micromanagement. It would slow decision-making, expose sensitive negotiations, and make it nearly impossible to compete with peer institutions operating under the same model.

Finley leans on the idea that trustees are being kept in the dark. They’re not. They can review information. They can ask questions. They can vote. And they have been.

I've been clear all along that this discussion/debate between MSU's administration and a few members of MSU's Board of Trustees is a good sign of healthy university leadership. They should go back and forth on this, with the result being a well-thought out plan of action.

In his column, Finley treats nondisclosure agreements like evidence of something hidden without acknowledging that they’re standard in scenarios like this. If Michigan State is trying to raise money in a competitive environment, allowing valuations, contract terms, and strategy to leak would weaken its position immediately.

The ownership argument gets stretched too. Selling 11 percent of a revenue-focused entity is not selling Michigan State athletics, no matter how Finley frames it. The university still owns the teams, the brand, the facilities, the academic mission. What’s being monetized is future revenue – media rights, sponsorship inventory, branding opportunities. That’s a financial structure, not a handover of control.

The funding piece of Spartan Media Ventures is where Finley's column really falls short. If not private capital, then what? Higher student fees? More taxpayer support? Pulling from the university’s general fund? Those are the alternatives.

The current model brings in outside investment to share both the risk and the upside. For years, Finley has argued for limiting taxpayer exposure and leaning on private-sector solutions. That’s exactly what this is.

There’s also a liability angle that rarely gets mentioned. A properly structured private entity can shield the university from certain financial risks tied to commercial activity. That’s one of the reasons schools across the country are moving in this direction.

And then, Finley serves up Nassar.

That comparison doesn’t belong anywhere near this discussion. The Nassar scandal involved ignored reports, systemic failure, and real people who were harmed while multiple institutions failed to act. This situation involves a governance and business model built for a new era of college athletics. There is no overlap between those realities.

There’s a real discussion to be had about transparency, structure, and oversight in this space. It’s a conversation worth having in detail. It’s worth pressing on. But dragging Nassar into it shifts the focus away from facts and into something else entirely.

If the goal is to challenge how this is being built, then challenge it directly. Lay out the concerns. Stay on the substance.

If I were to close this column the way Finley tends to write his, I might say something like this: why does Nolan Finley, and by extension The Detroit News, seem so intent on casting Michigan State in the worst possible light at every turn? Why inject suspicion into a situation where the university is operating within the rules and laws, trying to build its athletic department, and using the same types of structures and resources that peer institutions across the country are already using? Why does this draw immediate alarm, when we’ve all seen moments in this state where far more serious issues were met with patience, restraint, or silence? Why assume the worst outcome at MSU before anything has even had a chance to work?

I won’t do that, though.