Brett Favre and Rodney Bennett: Clashing Accounts of Funding Pledges for USM Volleyball Arena

Introduction:

In 2024, the ongoing civil case concerning the Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS) and the misappropriation of federal welfare funds brought to light starkly contrasting accounts from Brett Favre and former University of Southern Mississippi (USM) president Rodney Bennett regarding funding promises for a USM volleyball arena. The construction project, funded with $5 million from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds, was an unlawful diversion of resources meant to aid impoverished families. Text messages presented as evidence revealed Favre’s involvement in securing funding for the project, which MDHS lawyers claimed he initially promised to fund personally.

Rodney Bennett’s Deposition:

During his deposition in October 2023, Rodney Bennett provided his recollection of the funding discussions with Brett Favre. He stated that during an early January 2017 meeting, Favre expressed his intention to personally cover the entire cost of the volleyball facility. According to Bennett, the agreement reached in his office was for Favre to fund the entire project to expedite its completion, bypassing the slower pace of a state capital project.

Brett Favre’s Deposition:

In his December deposition, Brett Favre maintained that he did not make any promises to personally fund the volleyball arena. When questioned about Rodney Bennett’s testimony, Favre expressed uncertainty about why Bennett would make false statements. Favre’s attorneys emphasized that donors have the right to change their minds regarding funding commitments, and that any alleged fraudulent transfers could not have benefited Favre since he had the right to change his mind before the transfers were made or even considered.

MDHS Allegations and Favre’s Efforts to Secure Funding:

The MDHS lawsuit alleges that Favre entered into a verbal agreement to personally guarantee the funds required for the construction of the volleyball facility. However, Favre’s attorneys pointed to Bennett’s testimony acknowledging that donors can alter their funding decisions. They argued that Favre had the right to change his mind and did so well before any transfers were made or contemplated.

Over the first half of 2017, MDHS claimed that Favre attempted to raise funds through donations. However, Favre faced challenges in securing sufficient contributions from his connections and friends to meet the funding obligation. Texts presented as evidence showcased Favre’s efforts to fund the arena, initially estimated at $4 million, with the assistance of the Mississippi Community Education Center (MCEC), led by Nancy and Zach New, and then-head of MDHS, John Davis. Nancy New and John Davis, along with Favre, are among the defendants in the MDHS lawsuit.

Favre’s Understanding of Funding Sources and Legal Implications:

MDHS filings in December 2022 indicated that Favre understood the funding for the volleyball facility originated from TANF funds. During his deposition, Favre acknowledged that he did not take any steps to verify the legality or lawfulness of the funding plan. He expressed trust in the approval of the project by various entities, including the Mississippi State Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) Board, the Attorney General, the governor’s office, and the University. Favre stated that he did not consult a lawyer during the process of securing funds for the volleyball center.

Favre’s Motivation for Building the Facility:

When asked about his motivations for constructing the volleyball facility, Favre explained that the likelihood of his daughter playing in the arena was minimal since she intended to pursue beach volleyball, which was later added as a sport. He clarified that although he desired for his daughter to play in the facility, it was not the primary reason behind its construction.

Conclusion:

The depositions of Brett Favre and Rodney Bennett presented contrasting accounts of funding promises made for the USM volleyball arena. Favre maintained that he did not make any personal funding commitments, while Bennett recalled an agreement for Favre to personally cover the entire cost. The differing testimonies highlight the complexities of the case and the ongoing legal proceedings surrounding the misappropriation of TANF funds.