Recent reporting on the Eighty-Seven and Running Foundation, the charity associated with Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, underscores an important truth: public visibility and good intentions do not guarantee good governance or accountability in nonprofit operations. While Kelce has been recognized for his community involvement and was named his team’s nominee for the Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year Award, an examination of the foundation’s federal tax filings raises serious questions about how donations have been classified and spent.

What the Filings Show

According to reporting by Jason Wolf of The Arizona Republic, as well as CharityWatch’s independent review of the foundation’s IRS filings, the foundation reported raising approximately $1.5 million and spending roughly $1.1 million over a multi-year period, with about 41 cents of every dollar reported as directed to charitable programs. A substantial share of spending was classified as management and general expenses, including payments to A&A Management Group, a firm co-founded by Travis Kelce’s longtime business managers and closely associated with his off-field business operations. The filings show that A&A received fees for management and administrative services, raising questions about the degree of independence between the foundation and entities connected to its leadership. The organization also reported operating with only two board members, which calls into question its ability to operate independently from the interests of A&A Management Group.

CharityWatch’s Concerns

CharityWatch CEO and Executive Director, Laurie Styron, raised concerns about how the organization appears to be structured and operated. “It appears to function more as an extension of the management company versus as an independent public charity,” Laurie Styron, the executive director of CharityWatch, told the The Arizona Republic after reviewing the foundation’s tax filings. “That’s not how charities work. It’s wrong,” Styron said, pointing to what appeared to be a lack of independence between the charity and related business interests.

Her observation highlights a broader issue that extends well beyond a single organization. When a charity reports disproportionately high management expenses or lacks basic governance safeguards, donors and the public have reason to ask difficult questions. Without clear separation between charitable operations and connected entities, the risk of misuse, misreporting, or the appearance of self-dealing increases, regardless of intent.

Styron also observed that Kelce’s nonprofit’s charitable spending each year has been reported on one vague line called “other fees for services,” rather than delineated by expense type as IRS instructions direct filers to do. This style of reporting “tells the public nothing about what the charity is accomplishing,” said Styron to The Arizona Republic.

Styron also told The Arizona Republic that “Players and their managers need to stop using charities this way. Don’t get creative. Don’t look for loopholes. If you establish a charity, stop mixing in business interests or using friends to operate it. Do it the right way or don’t do it at all. There are a lot of ways for players to give back without founding their own charity.”

Response and Corrections

According to The Arizona Republic, representatives for the foundation have acknowledged that some expenses were improperly classified and have stated that corrections were made in later filings, including a reduction in reported management fees. They have also indicated that steps are being taken to expand the board and strengthen oversight. While these changes are welcome, public filings still reflect a significant gap between funds raised and funds spent on programs during the period reviewed, underscoring why early controls and accurate reporting matter.

Celebrity Does Not Exempt A Charity From Oversight

When celebrities or other influential figures launch charities, donors often assume that good intentions equate to good stewardship. This case serves as a reminder that charitable credibility must be earned through sound governance, disciplined financial management, and accountability that meets nonprofit best practices.

CharityWatch has long emphasized that transparency, accurate financial reporting, and independent governance are essential to maintaining donor trust. Even well-intended charitable efforts can undermine confidence when basic standards are not met. A charity being affiliated with a high-profile athlete, actor, musician, or other celebrity does not exempt it from sound governance or eliminate the need for strong oversight.

CharityWatch

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!