As millions of fans prepare to tune in for Super Bowl Sunday, CharityWatch is revisiting a recurring and less celebrated aspect of professional football: the charity scandals tied to players, awards, and high-profile philanthropic efforts. Over the years, CharityWatch has examined numerous football-associated charities and identified repeated failures in governance, transparency, and legal compliance. These are all issues that place donors at risk and undermine public trust.
Much of this scrutiny has been brought to light through investigative reporting by Jason Wolf of The Arizona Republic and the USA Today Network, with CharityWatch CEO and executive director, Laurie Styron, providing expert analysis to help donors understand what went wrong and why it matters.
When Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin collapsed on the field in early 2023, fans responded with extraordinary generosity, donating millions to what appeared to be his charitable effort, the Chasing M’s Foundation, through crowdfunding platforms. However, as reporting by CharityWatch and The Arizona Republic noted, much of the early fundraising occurred through a GoFundMe tied to an LLC rather than a registered 501(c)(3) public charity. Meaning, donors were not guaranteed tax deductibility and it was unclear who ultimately controlled the dollars meant for charity.
CharityWatch pointed out that while the outpouring of support was undeniably heartfelt, the structure of the fundraising raised legal and transparency questions that donors deserved to know about.
“‘Sometimes a cause starts out very small and one major tragedy can propel a $2,500 organization into an $8 million one practically overnight,’ said Laurie Styron, executive director of nonprofit charity watchdog CharityWatch.”
“‘Even with the best of intentions and good faith commitment to manage donations ethically and responsibly, the people capable of running a very small organization may be out of their depth trying to run a big one,’ she said.”
One pattern that CharityWatch has repeatedly identified is the prevalence of player-founded charities that operate with minimal board independence, weak internal controls, and heavy involvement from agents or family members.
Examples of these governance concerns have surfaced in reviews of Travis Kelce’s Eighty-Seven & Running Foundation. Kelce’s charity’s tax filings reflected that only 41 cents of every dollar raised went to programs in some recent years, according to Wolf’s investigation into the footballer’s nonprofit. CharityWatch observed that the bulk of expenses were being classified under a vague line item called “other fees for services” rather than reported on the clearly-defined expense lines in the IRS tax Form 990.
“It appears to function more as an extension of the management company versus as an independent public charity,” Styron told The Arizona Republic. “That’s not how charities work. It’s wrong.”
CharityWatch has also been at the center of reporting on the NFL’s Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year Award and the troubling legal compliance records of several associated charities. Jason Wolf’s reporting found that some nominees and winners were tied to charities that were not in legal compliance at the time of their nominations.
DJ Moore, wide receiver for the Chicago Bears and the team’s 2025 nominee, saw his charity’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status revoked by the IRS for failing to file required returns. The organization also missed state registration deadlines, raising red flags about its compliance with basic nonprofit law.
These issues are not limited to a single year. Wolf’s reporting showed that recent winners such as Cameron Heyward (2023 Man of the Year) and Arik Armstead (2024 Man of the Year) were also affiliated with charities that had failed to file required returns or were not properly registered to solicit donations in key states; both serious compliance failures for organizations associated with one of the NFL’s most prestigious honors.
Styron emphasized to The Arizona Republic that better vetting by the NFL could help prevent these situations: “Someone needs to be looking out for players and charitable dollars, and the best-positioned organization to be doing that is the NFL. Proper vetting … could fix the problem practically overnight.”
CharityWatch also analyzed controversy surrounding the Favre 4 Hope Foundation, associated with NFL Hall of Famer Brett Favre. Reporting noted that grants made by the foundation, which were meant to support breast cancer patients and underserved children, were instead used to fund the construction of a volleyball facility at the University of Southern Mississippi, raising questions about mission alignment and donor intent.
Styron’s commentary in related media underscored nonprofit best practices: a charity’s board has a fiduciary duty to act in the charity’s best interest, and steering funds toward facilities that benefit the founder’s social circle rather than broadly advancing the stated mission undermines donor trust. “Founding a charity to purportedly help … and then using it instead as a vehicle to funnel funds to a volleyball facility that exploits the tragedies of other human beings for the benefit of the extremely privileged — it’s morally reprehensible,” she told ESPN in coverage of the controversy.
In another case involving an iconic football figure, Tom Brady’s charitable endeavors were scrutinized by CharityWatch related to potential conflicts of interest between a nonprofit’s governing body and for-profit business interests. While the foundation had legitimate charitable activities, questions arose because the same individuals were key players in both the nonprofit and associated business entities.
Styron explained to outlets, including The Daily Beast, that nonprofits need clear fiduciary boundaries: “A charity’s board members have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the charity at all times. Doing so becomes more complicated when there are competing interests between nonprofit and for-profit legal entities, particularly when the two organizations share key staff who have to balance their fiduciary duties between the two.”
As a guest on the sports podcast Mitch Unfiltered, CharityWatch CEO and Executive Director, Laurie Styron, spoke with host Mitch Levy (MARKER 1:06:00) about issues at The Russell Wilson Charitable Foundation, advising that there are better ways for athletes to accomplish their charitable goals than starting up their own charities.
“Well I think there are a couple of things going on. First, I think there is a halo effect. If a fan really likes a particular athlete, and also if there’s a level of sincerity where that athlete probably is trying to accomplish something good—there doesn’t seem to be anything off about that—then people do want to believe that what you see is what you get. The other issue is that I think people do have this assumption that there is this really tight regulation by the government of nonprofit organizations. But, in fact, it’s perfectly legal for charities to spend as little as 1% of their budgets on programs without violating any laws…”
An ESPN investigation, supported by independent analyses from CharityWatch and the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, raised serious concerns about the governance, transparency, and stewardship of the Washington Commanders Charitable Foundation, a public charity that derived most of its funding from fans and the general public.
Review of tax filings revealed prolonged lack of independent board oversight, undisclosed related-party transactions involving entities owned by team leadership, questionable accounting practices that inflated charitable grants, and a pattern of donations that drifted away from the foundation’s stated mission to serve vulnerable children in the Washington region.
CharityWatch CEO, Laurie Styron, commented:
“There are so many red flags here, it’s hard to keep score. Taxpayers who subsidize the existence of public charities also have a stake in knowing that nonprofits aren’t being used to forward the personal interests of the people running it.”
“This is a big problem. One person can’t govern themselves. There is no board. There is no independence. There are no checks and balances against conflict or competing interests.”
“The reporting guidance is both rules-based and principles-based, and in some cases requires the governing body of a charity to make judgment calls in good faith with respect to whether or not the charity truly has the ability to make decisions independently of for-profit interests — particularly when a charity has a small board and there is shared governance between the nonprofit and the for-profit.”
“Fans took this charity at its word when they were told how their donations would be used. If fans were told that their donations would be used to fund specific programs, it’s unethical, not to mention insulting, for the person running the charity to turn around and use those funds for something totally different.”
“When I pay my electric bill every month, I don’t say I am making a charitable grant to the electric company. It’s an expense paid in exchange for a service, not a grant.”
“It’s always a red flag when a charity’s marketing doesn’t reconcile with its financial reporting.”
Looking more broadly at athlete-associated philanthropy, CharityWatch’s analysis in “NFL Athletes & Their Charities: A Losing Game?” highlighted that many football-linked charities raised significant funds yet directed less than half of their revenue to actual charitable work, with much going to overhead, management, and fundraising expenses instead.
Styron framed this systemic issue in stark terms: “The function of a charity’s board is to provide governance and oversight … If someone is being paid too much relative to the value they are bringing to the organization, there is no independent governing body at this charity to stop this from happening. It’s a virtual free-for-all.”
Beyond individual examples, these football-related charity scandals have a broader effect by eroding public trust in both sports philanthropy and the nonprofit sector at large.
CharityWatch’s role in these stories is to provide analysis that helps donors see beyond celebrity, marketing, and emotional appeals, encouraging people to evaluate charities on governance, transparency, and results, not just name recognition.
As fans enjoy the spectacle of the Super Bowl this weekend, CharityWatch urges donors to look beyond headlines and social media buzz when supporting charities associated with athletes and teams. Celebrity involvement does not guarantee sound financial stewardship or compliance with basic nonprofit law.
“Choose the charity. Don’t let the charity choose you,” Styron has advised in multiple media interviews.
As reporting by Jason Wolf and CharityWatch’s analysis demonstrate, informed giving remains the best defense against wasted donations, especially where charity and professional sports intersect.
Will you help CharityWatch continue our important work?
As the only independent charity watchdog organization in the United States, CharityWatch relies on your support to fund our in-depth research and analysis in order to bring you the unbiased charity ratings and other information you rely on to help you make more informed giving decisions. We are not directly or indirectly funded by nonprofit industry interests.
We hope you will consider making a donation today so that we can continue to speak openly and critically and call out wrongdoing when we see it without concern for special interests cutting our funding. CharityWatch is a small organization and your donations are noticed, needed, and greatly appreciated. Thank you for giving wisely!