Connect with us

Business

In College Sports’ Big Money Era, Here’s Where the Dollars Go

Published

on

In College Sports’ Big Money Era, Here’s Where the Dollars Go

What wins college football championships? A potent defense? An explosive offense? In the era of name, image and likeness, it is money.

Lots of it.

It can cost as much as $10.5 million for a title-contending starting offense and defense in the new Power Four conferences. The big-ticket item, of course, lines up behind the center.

A blue-chip quarterback in a Power Four conference — schools like Alabama, Michigan and Washington — can expect to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars annually through name, image and likeness, or N.I.L., deals. A quarterback in the Southeastern Conference can bring in more than $1 million, on average.

How much top-earning football players make in a year

Expected annual compensation for starting players in the Power Four conferences by position

Advertisement

Source: Opendorse. Data is based on N.I.L. transactions disclosed through or processed by Opendorse between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2024.

Note: To be included in the calculations players’ earnings must rank in the top 25 at their position. Specialist ($60,000) and Tight End ($140,000) positions are not labeled.

And that is merely an average. Ask the Texas Longhorns.

Advertisement
Quinn Ewers
$1.7 million

Texas

Their starter, Quinn Ewers, has N.I.L. deals worth nearly $2 million annually, according to the website On3, which tracks deals for college athletes.

Arch Manning
$3.1 million

Texas

Arch Manning, his backup who hails from one of football’s royal families, has deals worth more than $3 million.

Carson Beck
$1.4 million

Georgia

Advertisement

Georgia’s quarterback, Carson Beck, brings in enough that he recently bought a Lamborghini that retails for $270,000.

Between the cash pouring into athletic programs via collectives — a fancy name for boosters who funnel much of the N.I.L. money to players — and more lenient transfer rules, a sort of eBay to buy athletes has been created, transforming how powerhouse teams are built.

“It’s whoever wants to pay, the most money raised, the most money to buy the most players, is going to have the best opportunity to win,” Nick Saban, the recently retired football coach at the University of Alabama, told Congress in March.

But how do athletes, coaches and administrators determine the going rates? Many consult the Black Book, a kind of Zillow for college sports, which details an athlete’s expected annual earnings, and, in the case of sports like football and men’s and women’s basketball, even breaking them down by position and conference.

Advertisement

A series of three proportional area charts related to the N.I.L market. The first square shows the overall size of the N.I.L. market, the second shows that 80 percent of the market is made up by donor groups known as collectives and the third shows that only 30 percent of the market is publicly disclosed.

Opendorse, the company behind the Black Book, projects around $1.7 billion in transactions in the N.I.L. market this year.

Of that, 80 percent will come through collectives like Texas’ Team One Foundation and the Classic City Collective at the University of Georgia. But even that is an incomplete picture of a rapidly changing N.I.L. frontier awash with money.

Advertisement

There is no universal requirement for athletes to disclose how much they are being paid. Less than a third of the money that student athletes are making is publicly known, according to Opendorse.

Advertisement

Still, the Black Book is a must have for university collectives and collegiate athletic officials, as well as the lawyers involved in House v. N.C.A.A., an antitrust case in which the Black Book and all Opendorse data from 2016 through 2022 were subpoenaed. The sides recently agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement.

If a federal judge approves it, schools will be allowed to set aside around $20 million per year, beginning in the fall of 2025, to pay athletes. (The proposal also calls for a program by which athletes’ N.I.L. deals could be reviewed.)

The Black Book, copies of which were obtained by The New York Times, shows that, even as football remains the dominant sport financially, sports like women’s basketball have become increasingly lucrative. In her final season at the University of Iowa, Caitlin Clark sold out arenas, increased television ratings and had sponsorship deals valued at $3 million.

Clark may have been the sport’s unicorn, but title-contending programs are expected to spend more than $730,000 on their starting five, with guards being the most valued at $225,000.

The N.I.L. era has also created a new generation of entrepreneurs and given them a more concrete sense of their earning potential. For instance, Alex Glover, a star volleyball player who recently concluded her career at Southern Methodist University, made more than $100,000 from sponsors who wanted to be associated with her Instagram video series, called “Day-In-The-Life of a D1 Volleyballer.”

Advertisement
Livvy Dunne
$3.9 million

L.S.U.

Olivia Dunne, a gymnast at Louisiana State University, has become something of a celebrity in recent years. Dunne, who goes by Livvy, has leveraged a large social media following — she has over five million followers on Instagram — to notch deals with major brands like Nautica and Vuori.

Paige Bueckers
$1.4 million

Connecticut

Paige Bueckers, a standout basketball star at the University of Connecticut, similarly has millions of followers on social media and has signed N.I.L. deals with Nike, Gatorade and Verizon.

Advertisement

The top N.I.L. earners in women’s gymnastics usually make around $20,000 annually, about 10 times as much as their male counterparts, according to data from Opendorse. Besides the major men’s sports — football, basketball and baseball — collegiate female athletes typically earn more than male athletes in the same sport.

How men’s and women’s annual earnings compare in smaller sports

Expected annual compensation in select Olympic sports

Source: Opendorse. Data is based on N.I.L. transactions disclosed through or processed by Opendorse between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2024.

Note: To be included in the calculations, players’ expected annual earnings must rank in at least the top 50 at their position. The Track/Cross Country category includes athletes in track and field.

Advertisement

“By nature, athletes are disciplined and purpose-driven,” said Blake Lawrence, the co-founder of Opendorse. “What has been really cool to see is how many athletes on our platform, especially the women, lean into the opportunities to be creative and build a brand. They don’t want to get paid just for going to practice and games.”

Lawrence, a former starting linebacker at the University of Nebraska, began Opendorse in 2012 to help his former teammate Prince Amukamara monetize his brand after he entered the N.F.L. as a first-round draft pick with the New York Giants. Lawrence understood the commitment required of college athletes and anticipated that the pay-to-play model was coming sooner rather than later. More than a decade on, some 150,000 athletes have used his platform to grow their name, image and likeness revenues.

The company compiles its numbers based on previous N.I.L. marketing deals signed by a large cross section of football and basketball players and competitors in the so-called nonrevenue Olympic sports. Clients that pay for the information include university athletic departments, their collectives and athlete agencies.

“I know what it takes to be an athlete and wanted to create something like Expedia or Zillow that took the mystery out of getting good value and putting that power in the hands of athletes,” said Lawrence, who offers tutorials on topics like marketing and pay benchmarks on his Instagram feed. “This is all new to them. I see six contracts a second and want them armed with information to make what could be life-changing decisions.”

Advertisement

Like the American economy, college sports have a hierarchy, and its “1 percenters” are the so-called Power conferences like the SEC and the Big Ten.

How the Power Four conferences compare

Expected annual compensation for starting players in each conference by position

Source: Opendorse. Data is based on N.I.L. transactions disclosed through or processed by Opendorse between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2024.

Note: To be included in the calculations players’ earnings must rank in the top 10 at their position.

Advertisement

The expected annual N.I.L. compensation for a top-10-earning football player at any position is $216,000 for the Big Ten and $565,000 in the SEC, which is more than three times the annual earnings of $159,000 in the Big 12.

The SEC’s stature is even more pronounced this year. The former Big 12 powerhouses Texas and Oklahoma have joined the conference, which is made up of state universities that have long taken football seriously and invested heavily in athletics. The top-10-earning SEC players at every position — except for tight ends and specialists — earn more annually on average than players in any other Power Four conference. A running back in the SEC can now expect to make about half a million dollars, almost as much as a Big 12 quarterback. Offensive and defensive linemen in the SEC do even better, tallying upward of $700,000.

For the smaller, so-called Group of Five conferences, which include Conference USA and the Mountain West, the new N.I.L. environment puts football championships even further out of reach. The average value of top 25 players at any position at schools such as Liberty (part of Conference USA) or Boise State (in the Mountain West) is just under $50,000.

The money is lucrative in the top tier of men’s and women’s basketball, as well: A starting five of top-25-earning men’s basketball players costs about $3.3 million, with forwards on the top of the pay scale making around $750,000. And while women’s basketball earnings are comparatively much lower, top-level women’s players have had substantial growth since last year, with pay across all positions up by $30,000.

Advertisement

How much top-earning basketball players make

Expected annual compensation for players, on average, by position

Source: Opendorse. Data is based on N.I.L. transactions disclosed through or processed by Opendorse between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2024.

Note: To be included in the calculations players’ earnings must rank in the top 25 at their position.

Advertisement

Even better for basketball stars? With their faces and personalities in full view during games, it is easier for them to enhance revenues beyond collective money through sponsorship partnerships with national brands.

This new market allowed Armando Bacot, who played at the University of North Carolina, to remain in college last season and begin work on a master’s degree in business. His partnerships with the Opendorse clients Dunkin and Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes, as well as others with regional and local companies, have made him a multimillionaire.

Many star players like Bacot are now forgoing the ritual of leaving school after just a year or two to enter the N.B.A. Instead of jumping (ready or not) into the draft in search of riches, more players are choosing the ample N.I.L. pay and more time to work on their games and degrees. (Bacot went undrafted and signed with the Utah Jazz this summer.)

“With more and more veteran guys staying in school longer, it’s going to be harder and harder for freshmen to get big minutes, because coaches would rather have veterans,” said Daniel Hennes, the chief executive of Engage, which represents college basketball stars like Bacot in N.I.L. deals. “So, underclassmen will stay in school longer, and the draft will get older and older. In a lot of ways, that’s good for everyone.”

Mike Boynton is among the many college coaches who are not so sure. He brought the future N.B.A. star Cade Cunningham to Oklahoma State with four years of shoe leather. He outworked more accomplished rivals with national titles on their résumés with the promise of doing right by the young star.

Advertisement

“I can’t work that hard anymore,” said Boynton, now an assistant at the University of Michigan. “Not when you can say, ‘Hey, here’s $500,000 to come spend nine months over here.’”

Big sports still pay big money …

… but athletes in the so-called nonrevenue sports are finding increased earnings, too.

Source: Opendorse. Data is based on N.I.L. transactions disclosed through or processed by Opendorse between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2024.

Note: To be included in the calculations, players’ expected annual earnings must rank in the top 25 at their position. The Track/Cross Country category includes athletes in track and field.

Advertisement

For many athletes — those who aren’t top stars in the marquee sports — the N.I.L. era is different, though no less exciting. Zoe Ledet, a 19-year-old sprinter at West Virginia State University, joined TikTok in 2020, at the height of Covid-era teenage boredom. She said she quickly amassed a following for “funny skits, hair care, you know, relatable stuff” and now has 1.7 million followers on the platform and nearly 300,000 on Instagram. Still, Ledet never thought brands would be interested in working with her as an athlete.

“I knew that big track athletes like Sha’Carri could get deals with Nike, but I didn’t know there were smaller deals to be had,” said Ledet, referring to the Olympic sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson.

Zoe Ledet
$3,500

West Virginia State

Last year, during her freshman season, Ledet was approached by B.E. Collective+, an organization that supports student athletes from historically Black colleges and universities in the N.I.L. market. She signed with the group and had N.I.L. deals worth about $3,500 in her first year.

Advertisement

For Ledet, those earnings aren’t life-changing money, but she has been able to use platforms like the BE Collective+ and Opendorse to gain a better sense of her value in the new marketplace. Her followers now ask her to post more about track and to share videos from meets, content that she hopes will in turn lead to more N.I.L. deals.

“There are a lot of athletes bigger than me, of course, but N.I.L. has allowed athletes like me to widen our platform and get more recognition, too,” she said.

Look up expected annual N.I.L. earnings by sport

Sport Position Div. Expected annual earnings
Football Football Quarterback SEC $1,043,252
Football Football Quarterback Power 4 $819,020
Football Football Offensive line SEC $779,288
Football Football Defensive line SEC $756,497
M. Basketball Men’s basketball Forward NCAA DI $749,201
Football Football Wide receiver SEC $705,554
M. Basketball Men’s basketball Guard NCAA DI $636,472
M. Basketball Men’s basketball All NCAA DI $630,796
Football Football Wide receiver Power 4 $614,561
Football Football Linebacker SEC $584,629
Football Football All SEC $565,380
Football Football Offensive line Power 4 $554,294
Football Football Defensive back SEC $549,452
M. Basketball Men’s basketball Center NCAA DI $506,717
Football Football Defensive line Power 4 $465,381
Football Football Quarterback Big 12 $459,458
Football Football Running back SEC $436,617
Football Football Linebacker Power 4 $436,432
Football Football All Power 4 $418,487
Football Football Defensive back Power 4 $406,259
Football Football Quarterback A.C.C. $385,000
Football Football Quarterback Big Ten $377,109
Football Football Running back Power 4 $341,156
Football Football Wide receiver Big Ten $328,893
Football Football Offensive line Big Ten $322,002
Football Football Wide receiver A.C.C. $317,823
Football Football Offensive line A.C.C. $282,400
W. Basketball Women’s basketball Guard NCAA DI $225,940
Football Football Running back Big Ten $220,983
Football Football Defensive line A.C.C. $220,821
Football Football All Big Ten $216,471
Football Football Defensive line Big Ten $196,548
Football Football All A.C.C. $192,365
Football Football Running back Big 12 $185,363
Football Football Linebacker Big Ten $177,467
Football Football Tight end SEC $169,993
Football Football Defensive back Big Ten $168,770
Football Football Defensive back Big 12 $164,604
Football Football All Big 12 $159,353
Football Football Running back A.C.C. $158,794
Football Football Linebacker Big 12 $152,978
Football Football Tight end Power 4 $143,920
W. Basketball Women’s basketball All NCAA DI $130,515
Football Football Linebacker A.C.C. $129,700
Football Football Wide receiver Big 12 $126,880
Football Football Offensive line Big 12 $114,274
Football Football Defensive back A.C.C. $111,029
Football Football Defensive line Big 12 $109,030
W. Basketball Women’s basketball Forward NCAA DI $101,691
Football Football Tight end A.C.C. $98,011
Football Football Tight end Big Ten $97,679
Football Football Tight end Big 12 $90,941
Baseball Baseball All NCAA DI $72,324
W. Basketball Women’s basketball Center NCAA DI $65,066
Football Football Specialist Big Ten $58,341
Football Football Specialist Power 4 $55,770
Football Football Specialist SEC $54,887
Football Football Specialist Big 12 $40,713
Football Football Specialist A.C.C. $27,706
M. Golf Men’s golf All NCAA DI $23,101
W. Gymnastics Women’s gymnastics All NCAA DI $20,857
Wrestling Wrestling All NCAA DI $18,153
M. Track/cross country Men’s track/cross country All NCAA DI $17,940
M. Track/cross country Women’s track/cross country All NCAA DI $13,988
W. Swimming/diving Women’s swimming/diving All NCAA DI $13,519
W. Soccer Women’s soccer All NCAA DI $12,292
Softball Softball All NCAA DI $11,422
W. Volleyball Women’s volleyball All NCAA DI $10,645
W. Golf Women’s golf All NCAA DI $8,059
W. Tennis Women’s tennis All NCAA DI $5,904
M. Lacrosse Men’s lacrosse All NCAA DI $5,780
M. Soccer Men’s soccer All NCAA DI $5,048
M. Swimming/diving Men’s swimming/diving All NCAA DI $4,462
W. Lacrosse Women’s lacrosse All NCAA DI $4,378
M. Tennis Men’s tennis All NCAA DI $4,150
W. Ice hockey Women’s ice hockey All NCAA DI $3,556
M. Ice hockey Men’s ice hockey All NCAA DI $3,518
M. Gymnastics Men’s gymnastics All NCAA DI $2,282
Field hockey Field hockey All NCAA DI $1,244
Rowing Rowing All NCAA DI $1,035
Bowling Bowling All NCAA DI $658
M. Volleyball Men’s volleyball All NCAA DI $488
Rifle Rifle All NCAA DI $161
Fencing Fencing All NCAA DI $138

No results

Advertisement

Source: Opendorse. Data is based on N.I.L. transactions disclosed through or processed by Opendorse between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2024.

Note: To be included in the calculations, players’ expected annual earnings must rank in at least the top 50 at their position. The Track/Cross Country category includes athletes in track and field.

Advertisement

Business

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

Published

on

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.

The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.

The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.

The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.

Advertisement

It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.

However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.

Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.

Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.

“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.

Advertisement

In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”

The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.

“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.

Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.

Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.

Advertisement

Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.

The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.

But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.

Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.

A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.

Advertisement

“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .

Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.

Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.

Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Published

on

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.

But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.

While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.

Advertisement

“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.

It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”

Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.

“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.

The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.

Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”

Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.

Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.

“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”

Advertisement

For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.

“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”

Continue Reading

Business

MrBeast company sued over claims of sexual harassment, firing a new mom

Published

on

MrBeast company sued over claims of sexual harassment, firing a new mom

A former female staffer who worked for Beast Industries, the media venture behind the popular YouTube channel MrBeast, is suing the company, alleging she was sexually harassed and fired shortly after she returned from maternity leave.

The employee, Lorrayne Mavromatis, a Brazilian-born social media professional, alleges in a lawsuit she was subjected to sexual harassment by the company’s management and demoted after she complained about her treatment. She said she was urged to join a conference call while in labor and expected to work during her maternity leave in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, according to the federal complaint filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

“This clout-chasing complaint is built on deliberate misrepresentations and categorically false statements, and we have the receipts to prove it. There is extensive evidence — including Slack and WhatsApp messages, company documents, and witness testimony — that unequivocally refutes her claims. We will not submit to opportunistic lawyers looking to manufacture a payday from us,” Gaude Paez, a Beast Industries spokesperson, said in a statement.

Jimmy Donaldson, 27, began MrBeast as a teen gaming channel that soon exploded into a media company worth an estimated $5 billion, with 500 employees and 450 million subscribers who watch its games, stunts and giveaways.

Mavromatis, who was hired in 2022 as its head of Instagram, described a pervasive climate of discrimination and harassment, according to the lawsuit.

Advertisement

In her complaint, she alleges the company’s former CEO James Warren made her meet him at his home for one-on-one meetings while he commented on her looks and dismissed her complaints about a male client’s unwanted advances, telling her “she should be honored that the client was hitting on her.”

When Mavromatis asked Warren why MrBeast, Donaldson, would not work with her, she was told that “she is a beautiful woman and her appearance had a certain sexual effect on Jimmy,” and, “Let’s just say that when you’re around and he goes to the restroom, he’s not actually using the restroom.”

Paez refuted the claim.

“That’s ridiculous. This is an allegation fabricated for the sole purpose of sparking headlines,” Paez said.

Mavromatis said she endured a slate of other indignities such as being told by Donaldson that she “would only participate in her video shoot if she brought him a beer.”

Advertisement

“In this male-centric workplace, Plaintiff, one of the few women in a high-level role, was excluded from otherwise all-male meetings, demeaned in front of colleagues, harassed, and suffered from males be given preferential treatment in employment decisions,” states the complaint.

When Mavromatis raised a question during a staff meeting with her team, she said a male colleague told her to “shut up” or “stop talking.”

At MrBeast headquarters in Greenville, N.C., she said male executives mocked female contestants participating in BeastGames, “who complained they did not have access to feminine hygiene products and clean underwear while participating in the show.”

In November 2023, Mavromatis formally complained about “the sexually inappropriate encounters and harassment, and demeaning and hostile work environment she and other female employees had been living and experiencing working at MrBeast,” to the company’s then head of human resources, Sue Parisher, who is also Donaldson’s mother, according to the suit.

In her complaint, Mavromatis said Beast Industries did not have a method or process for employees to report such issues either anonymously or to a third party, rather employees were expected to follow the company’s handbook, “How to Succeed In MrBeast Production.”

Advertisement

In it, employees were instructed that, “It’s okay for the boys to be childish,” “if talent wants to draw a dick on the white board in the video or do something stupid, let them” and “No does not mean no,” according to the complaint.

Mavromatis alleges that she was demoted and then fired.

Paez said that Mavromatis’s role was eliminated as part of a reorganization of an underperforming group within Beast Industries and that she was made aware of this.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending