Skip to content
Mid-American Athletic Conference Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Mid-American Athletic Conference Inc

Foster amateur intercollegiate sports competition between member institution teams under the rules and regulations of the ncaa.

$36M
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$3.2M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$224MRecreation & Sports$19MPhilanthropy$99k
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $34,573,609, the rows itemized in this filing. The $36,131,242 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,557,633 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$3,072,596
Median grant
5
States reached
$18M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MIAMI UNIVERSITY$3,218,889
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO$3,179,152
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY$3,146,817
BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY$3,099,523
WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY$3,087,423
OHIO UNIVERSITY$3,072,596
THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO$2,905,696
THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON$2,770,223
KENT STATE UNIVERSITY$2,570,850
EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY$2,516,533
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY$2,516,533
CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY$2,489,374
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO: $3.2M → 13%WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $3.1M → 12%EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $2.8M → 14%CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $2.7M → 19%BALL STATE UNIVERSITY: $2.5M → 19%MIAMI UNIVERSITY: $3.2M → 12%BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY: $3.1M → 12%THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON: $2.8M → 13%THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO: $3.1M → 18%OHIO UNIVERSITY: $3.1M → 22%NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: $3.1M → 13%STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO: $2.7M → 13%WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $3.1M → 12%EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $2.8M → 14%CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $2.6M → 19%BALL STATE UNIVERSITY: $2.4M → 19%MIAMI UNIVERSITY: $2.7M → 12%BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY: $2.5M → 12%THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON: $2.6M → 13%THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO: $2.9M → 18%OHIO UNIVERSITY: $2.8M → 22%NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: $2.7M → 13%STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO: $2.6M → 13%WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $2.4M → 12%EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $2.5M → 14%CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $2.5M → 19%MIAMI UNIVERSITY: $2.6M → 12%BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY: $2.4M → 12%THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON: $2.5M → 13%THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO: $2.8M → 18%OHIO UNIVERSITY: $2.8M → 22%NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: $2.4M → 13%STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO: $2.4M → 13%WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $2.4M → 12%EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $2.5M → 14%CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $2.4M → 19%MIAMI UNIVERSITY: $2.5M → 12%THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO: $2.8M → 18%OHIO UNIVERSITY: $2.6M → 22%NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: $2.4M → 13%CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $2.4M → 19%MIAMI UNIVERSITY: $2.3M → 12%THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO: $2.6M → 18%OHIO UNIVERSITY: $2.5M → 22%THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO: $2.4M → 18%OHIO UNIVERSITY: $2.4M → 22%THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO: $2.3M → 18%OHIO UNIVERSITY: $2.3M → 22%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$243M · 12 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

12 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
0

Total granted

$243M
$0

Still filing today

8%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO
    9× · 2017–2025 · $22M
  • OU
    Ohio University
    9× · 2017–2025 · $22M
  • MU
    MIAMI UNIVERSITY
    9× · 2017–2025 · $21M

Funded once

    How this is measured

    Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

    04Its field
    04the grantee network

    2 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

    Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

    How this is measured

    Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 2 of the 13 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

    Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

    0
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    0
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    2/2
    Grantees still filing
    2/2
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO: $22,382,748 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TOLEDOOhio University: $22,180,368 · OtherOhio UniversityMIAMI UNIVERSITY: $20,966,662 · OtherMIAMI UNIVERSITYSTATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BINGHAMTON: $20,949,511 · OtherSTATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BINGHAMTONBOARD OF REGENTS OF EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $20,797,400 · OtherBOARD OF REGENTS OF EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITYWESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $20,662,805 · OtherWESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITYNorthern Illinois University: $20,094,307 · OtherNorthern Illinois UniversityCENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: $20,031,503 · OtherCENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITYSIGMA CHI FRATERNITY: $19,263,063 · OtherSIGMA CHI FRATERNITYTHE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON: $19,068,215 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF AKRONBOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY: $18,518,790 · OtherBOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITYBall State University: $18,277,004 · OtherBall State UniversityTHE DALLAS FOUNDATION: $98,800 · Philanthropy
    Other$243,192,376Philanthropy$98,800

    Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

    25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE DALLAS FOUNDATION: $98,800 over 2y, 0.1% of budget
    Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

    A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

    • Who funds SIGMA CHI FRATERNITY ↗
    • Who funds THE DALLAS FOUNDATION ↗

    Co-funders

    Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

    National Collegiate A…Folds of Honor Founda…Tulsa Community Found…Columbus FoundationAssociation of Public…The Ohio Foundation o…American Chemical Soc…Corporation for Publi…The Dayton Foundation
    National Collegiate Athletic AssociationIN17.6× affinity6 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: National Collegiate Athletic Association · Folds of Honor Foundation · Tulsa Community Foundation · Columbus Foundation · Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities · The Ohio Foundation of Independent Colleges · American Chemical Society · Corporation for Public Broadcasting · The Dayton Foundation

    How this is measured
    Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

    How much its grantees rely on government

    Each dot is one organization Mid-American Athletic Conference Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mid-American Athletic Conference Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24
    no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      0get no government money at all
      0rely on government for over half their income
      ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
      typical government reliance, FY20–24
      How this is measured
      Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
      05Through Plinth

      Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

      How do I get to Mid-American Athletic Conference Inc?

      Find your warmest path to Mid-American Athletic Conference Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

      Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

      On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 13 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

      How this is measured
      Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

      Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

      Source object · view filing

      Play a game based on Mid-American Athletic Conference’s filings →

      More from the funding graph

      The unnamed billions
      grants reported with no recipient in the public record
      The regranting layer
      51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
      The DAF merry-go-round
      $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
      The endowment market
      who holds foundation money, and what just moved
      The camps
      funders cluster by geography, not ideology
      By state
      where grant money is based, and what stays home