Big Ten member schools are nearing a vote on whether to accept an investment agreement that could put more than $2 billion into the conference, multiple media outlets reported Friday.

However, the deal is still yet from certain, reportedly because of the uniqueness of the scenario and the complexities of putting it all together.

The agreement being considered is with a private investment company that manages the pension portfolio of the University of California system. According to Yahoo Sports, the company — UC Investments — is valued at $190 billion and manages the endowment and retirement savings of the 10 schools in the UC system. The fund is independent from the UC schools, whose biggest football programs are UCLA and Cal.

But Front Office Sports reported Friday that some Big Ten schools did not know which pension fund is being considered in the agreement.

Reports stated that a vote could occur early next week.

The main structure of the deal reportedly would include UC Investments giving the 18 Big Ten schools a total of $2.4 billion in exchange for a 10% ownership stake of Big Ten Enterprises — a Big Ten subsidiary that would be created to handle marketable assets such as media rights and sponsorship deals.

According to Yahoo, each school would receive at least $100 million in one up-front payment with future payments based on performance and marketing metrics for each school. The conference and UC Investments would also extend an agreement over the schools’ media-rights deals through 2046.

The conference’s media rights would not be part of the deal, though. The Big Ten’s deal that shares TV rights with Fox, NBC and CBS expires in 2030 while a separate deal with Fox only expires in 2036. Yahoo reported that the deal with UC Investments would include eight-figure bonuses to schools in fiscal year 2037, indicating a big increase in media-rights fees is anticipated after the current Fox deal is up.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) wrote a letter to Big Ten presidents cautioning them about entering into agreements with private firms.

Cantwell’s letter stated in part that such an agreement “may be counter to your university’s academic goals, may require the sale of university assets to a private investor, and may affect the tax-exempt purpose of those assets.”

Echoing FOS’ reporting that not all Big Ten institutions knew the details of the fund involved in the agreement, Cantwell wrote that she heard from conference regents and trustees who “have not been fully briefed on the deal under consideration.”

–Field Level Media