Table of Contents

Proposal 1 – Election of Directors

Proposal 1 – Election of Directors

Proposal 1 – Election of Directors

Nominees for Director

				ROBERT R. BENNETT, 56, Sprint director since 2006; Managing Director of Hilltop Investments, LLC, a private investment company.
				Status:   Independent, Continuity Director		Committees:   Audit (Chair) and Finance

  Public Company Board Directorships: Hewlett-Packard Company, Discovery Communications, Inc., and Liberty Media Corporation

Former Directorships Held During the Past Five Years: Liberty Interactive Corporation, Demand Media, Inc., and Discovery Holding Company

Biography: Mr. Bennett served as President of Discovery Holding Company from March 2005 until September 2008, when the company merged with Discovery Communications, Inc., creating a new public company. Mr. Bennett also served as President and CEO of Liberty Media Corporation (now Liberty Interactive Corporation) from April 1997 until August 2005 and continued as President until February 2006. He was with Liberty Media from its inception, serving as its principal financial officer and in various other capacities. Prior to his tenure at Liberty Media, Mr. Bennett worked with Tele-Communications, Inc. and the Bank of New York.

Qualifications: Mr. Bennett has extensive knowledge of the capital markets and other financial and operational issues from his experiences as a principal financial officer and president and chief executive officer of Liberty Media, which allows him to provide an invaluable perspective on financial and operational matters to our board.

				GORDON M. BETHUNE, 72, Sprint director since 2004; retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Continental Airlines, Inc., an international commercial airline company.
				Status:   Independent, Continuity Director		Committees:   Compensation (Chair) and Nominating

Public Company Board Directorships: Honeywell International, Inc. and Prudential Financial, Inc.

Former Directorships Held During the Past Five Years: Willis Group Holdings, Ltd.

Biography: Mr. Bethune served as Chief Executive Officer of Continental Airlines from 1994 and as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from 1996 until December 30, 2004.

Qualifications: Mr. Bethune has extensive experience serving as a chief executive officer and director of large international corporations, providing our board with the perspective of someone familiar with all facets of an international enterprise. He has extensive experience with developing and implementing strategies and policies for the acquisition and development of employee talent.

Proposal 1 – Election of Directors

				MARCELO CLAURE, 43, Sprint director since 2014; Chairman, CEO and President of Brightstar Corporation.
				Status:		SoftBank Affiliate Director SoftBank Designee		Committee:      Finance

 Biography: Mr. Claure is the founder of Brightstar Corp. and has been its Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President since October 1997. Brightstar provides value-added distribution, supply chain solutions, handset protection and insurance, buy-back and trade-in solutions, multi-channel retail solutions, and financial services to wireless manufacturers, retailers and operators. Mr. Claure has been an Executive Director of Brightstar Corp. since October 1997. He serves as a Director of Activate IT, Inc. He serves on the board of directors of the Bolivian-American Chamber of Commerce and serves on the Board of Trustees of Bentley College.

Qualifications: Mr. Claure was selected because of his experience making Brightstar one of the largest global distribution, services, and innovation companies in the telecommunications industry. His experience in the telecommunications industry provides a valuable perspective to our board.

				RONALD D. FISHER, 66, Sprint director since 2013 and Vice Chairman of the Board; Director and President of SoftBank Holdings Inc.
				Status:		SoftBank Affiliate Director SoftBank Designee		Committees:    Finance (Chair) Compensation

 Public Company Board Directorships: SoftBank Corp. (Tokyo Stock Exchange)

Biography: Mr. Fisher has over 30 years of experience of working with high growth and turnaround technology companies. Mr. Fisher joined SoftBank in 1995, overseeing its U.S. operations and other activities outside of Asia, and was the founder of SoftBank Capital. He is currently Director and President of SoftBank Holdings, Inc. Prior to joining SoftBank, Mr. Fisher was the CEO of Phoenix Technologies Ltd., the leading developer and marketer of system software products for personal computers, from 1990 to 1995. Mr. Fisher joined Phoenix from Interactive Systems Corporation, a UNIX software company that was purchased by the Eastman Kodak Company in 1988. At Interactive Systems he served for five years as President, initially as COO and then CEO. Mr. Fisher’s experience prior to Interactive Systems includes senior executive positions at Visicorp, TRW, and ICL (USA).

Qualifications: Mr. Fisher was selected because he possesses particular knowledge and experience in technology industries, and with strategic planning and leadership of complex organizations, including at other public corporations.

Proposal 1 – Election of Directors

				DANIEL R. HESSE, 60, Sprint director since 2007, President and Chief Executive Officer of Sprint.
				Status: Executive Director
				Former Directorships Held During the Past Five Years: Clearwire Corporation

Biography: Before becoming the President and Chief Executive Officer in December 2007, Mr. Hesse was Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Embarq Corporation. He served as Chief Executive Officer of Sprint’s Local Telecommunications Division from June 2005 until the Embarq spin-off in May 2006. Before that, Mr. Hesse served as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Terabeam Corp., a wireless telecommunications service provider and technology company, from 2000 until 2004. Prior to serving at Terabeam Corp., Mr. Hesse spent 23 years at AT&T holding various senior management positions, including President and Chief Executive Officer of AT&T Wireless Services. He serves on the board of directors of the National Board of Governors of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America and the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business.

Qualifications: As our President and Chief Executive officer, Mr. Hesse provides our board with unparalleled insight into our company’s operations, and his 37 years of experience in the telecommunications industry provides substantial knowledge of the challenges and opportunities facing our company.

				FRANK IANNA, 65, Sprint director since 2009; retired.
				Status:   Independent, Continuity Director		Committees:   Audit and Nominating
				Public Company Board Directorships: Harbinger Group, Inc.

  Former Directorships Held During the Past Five Years: Clearwire Corporation and Tellabs, Inc.

Biography: Mr. Ianna retired from AT&T in 2003 after a 31-year career serving in various executive positions, most recently as President of Network Services. Following his retirement, Mr. Ianna served as a business consultant, executive and board member for several private and nonprofit enterprises. He has experience in telecom company operations as well as wireless technology.

Qualifications: Mr. Ianna’s technical background and expertise, as well as his vast experience in the telecommunications industry as an executive and director for a diverse array of enterprises, allows him to provide a unique perspective to our board on a wide variety of issues.

Proposal 1 – Election of Directors

				ADM. MICHAEL G. MULLEN, 67, Sprint director since 2013; former 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
				Status: Independent, SoftBank Designee		Committee:      Compensation
				Public Company Board Directorships: General Motors Company

  Biography: Adm. Mullen serves on the board of directors as the “Security Director” under the National Security Agreement between Sprint, SoftBank, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense (the “NSA”). Admiral Mullen served as the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 2007 until his retirement in September 2011. Previously, Admiral Mullen served as the 28th Chief of Naval Operations (“CNO”) from July 2005 to 2007. CNO was one of four different four-star assignments Admiral Mullen held, including Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Commander, Allied Joint Force Command, and the 32nd Vice Chief of Naval Operations. Since 2012, he has served as President of MGM Consulting LLC and is the Charles and Marie Robertson Visiting Professor at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Qualifications: Adm. Mullen brings to our board extensive senior leadership experience gained during his 43-year career in the U.S. military. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officer in the U.S. military, Adm. Mullen led the armed forces during a critical period of transition, overseeing two active war zones. Adm. Mullen’s experience and relationships within the government allow him to lead our Government Security Committee and provide guidance on national security matters impacting the telecommunications industry. Adm. Mullen’s unique experience leading change in complex organizations, executive development and succession planning, diversity implementation, crisis management, strategic planning, budget policy, risk management, and technical innovation, are important to the oversight of Sprint’s business and allows him to make a significant and invaluable contribution to our board.

				MASAYOSHI SON, 56, Chairman of the Board, Sprint director since 2013; Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of SoftBank Corp.
				Status:		SoftBank Affiliate Director, SoftBank Designee		Committee:      Finance

 Public Company Board Directorships: SoftBank Corp. and Yahoo! Japan Corporation (each are listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange)

Biography: Mr. Son founded SoftBank in September 1981, and has been its President and Chairman ever since and its Chief Executive Officer since February 1986. Mr. Son serves in various capacities with SoftBank’s portfolio of companies, including service with BB Technologies Corporation (currently SoftBank BB Corp.) as president since 2001 and as Chairman and CEO since 2004, service with Japan Telecom Co., Ltd. (currently SoftBank Telecom Corp.) as Chairman since 2004 and CEO since 2006, and with Vodafone K.K. (currently SoftBank Mobile Corp.) as CEO and Chairman since 2006. In addition, Mr. Son has served as Chairman of Yahoo! Japan Corporation since 1996, which was established as a joint venture between SoftBank and Yahoo! Inc. Mr. Son has also served as Chairman of the Broadband Association in Japan and of The Great East Japan Earthquake Recovery Initiative Foundation.

Proposal 1 – Election of Directors

Qualifications: Mr. Son’s vast experience in the telecommunications industry, including his successes in Japan disrupting telecom duopolies, is valuable to Sprint. As part of the SoftBank Merger, it was determined that Mr. Son, because of his interest as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of SoftBank, our controlling stockholder, would be appointed to our board. Mr. Son provides expertise, leadership and strategic direction to the Sprint board.

				SARA MARTINEZ TUCKER, 59, Sprint director since 2013; President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Math and Science Initiative
				Status: Independent, SoftBank Designee		Committees:   Nominating (Chair) and Audit

  Public Company Board Directorships: American Electric Power Co., Inc. and Xerox Corp.

Biography: Ms. Tucker has been Chief Executive Officer and President at National Math and Science Initiative, Inc. since March 2013. Ms. Tucker served as the Under Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education from 2006 to December 2008. Her responsibilities included overseeing policies, programs and activities related to postsecondary education, vocational and adult education, and federal student aid. Ms. Tucker served as the Chief Executive Officer and President of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund from 1997 to October 1, 2006. Previously, she worked for 16 years at AT&T and served as Regional Vice President of its Global Business Communications Systems. She serves as a Director of Teach For America, Inc. She has been a Trustee of University of Notre Dame since June 2009.

Qualifications: Ms. Tucker brings to our board expertise relevant to a large telecommunications company, including her business experience and executive leadership expertise. These skills and experience are the result of her education, experience in the telecommunications industry, service at the U.S. Department of Education, leadership positions at the Hispanic Scholarship Fund and her service on other public company boards and committees.

Proposal 1 – Election of Directors

Summary of Director Qualifications and Expertise

The table below summarizes the key qualifications, skills or attributes of each of our directors that were most relevant to the decision to nominate him or her to serve on our board. The lack of a mark does not mean the director does not possess that qualification or skill; rather a mark indicates a specific area of focus or expertise on which our board relies most heavily. These qualifications and relevant experience have been discussed in more detail above.

Experience, Expertise or Attribute

Son

Fisher

Bennett

Bethune

Claure

Hesse

Ianna

Mullen

Tucker

Telecom

Technology, Device and Services

Leadership

Global Business

Financial

Mergers & Acquisitions

Public Company Board Service or Governance

Research & Academic

Ethnicity, Gender, National or Other Diversity

Our Board of Directors Recommends That You Vote “FOR” The Directors Nominated In Proposal 1.

Board Operations

Board Operations

Board Operations

Board Operations

Board Operations

Board Committees

Our board has four standing committees: Audit Committee, Finance Committee, Compensation Committee, and Nominating Committee. Each committee is described in the table below and each has a charter that describes such committee’s primary functions and principal responsibilities. A current copy of our Corporate Governance Guidelines and the charter for each standing committee of our board is available at www.sprint.com/governance or by email at shareholder.relations@sprint.com. Our charters and Corporate Governance Guidelines were adopted by our board and are annually reviewed and revised as necessary.

Board Operations

Board Operations

Meetings & Attendance

Board Operations

Political Contributions

Our Nominating Committee has oversight of Sprint’s political contributions and expenses. Our Nominating Committee also reviews the Company’s annual report on political contributions and discusses this report with our board. The report is available on our website at http://www.sprint.com/responsibility/gov-ethicspolicy/contributions.html. The report not only lists our contributions to political candidates during 2013, but it also describes the processes and oversight used in connection with such contributions.

Director Compensation

Director Compensation

The compensation of our outside directors is partially equity-based and is designed to comply with our Corporate Governance Guidelines, which provide that the guiding principles behind our non-employee director compensation practices are: (1) alignment with stockholder interests; (2) preservation of independence; and (3) preservation of the fiduciary duties owed to all stockholders.

Components of Compensation

The following table summarizes director compensation for the members of Sprint Corporation’s board, with the exception of Messrs. Fisher, Hesse and Son. Our directors are also reimbursed for direct expenses relating to their activities as members of our board.

Director Compensation

Director Compensation

Director Compensation

2014 Director Compensation Table

On February 20, 2014, our Board resolved to change our fiscal year end from December 31 to March 31, effective March 31, 2014 in order to align our fiscal year with SoftBank. The table below sets forth the compensation earned by our outside directors who served during the three month transition period ended March 31, 2014.

Compensation information for Mr. Hesse, our President and Chief Executive Officer, can be found in the “Executive Compensation” section of this proxy statement.

Audit Committee Report

Audit Committee Report

The Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed our audited consolidated financial statements with management. The Audit Committee has also discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm the matters required to be discussed by Auditing Standard No. 16, issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, in Rule 3200T.

The Audit Committee has received the written disclosures and the letter from the independent registered public accounting firm required by applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding the independent registered public accounting firm’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence, and has discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm its independence.

The Audit Committee met with senior management periodically during 2014 to consider the adequacy of our internal controls and discussed these matters with our independent registered public accounting firm and with appropriate financial personnel. The Audit Committee also discussed with senior management our disclosure controls and procedures and the certifications by our CEO and our Chief Financial Officer, or CFO, which are required for certain of our filings with the SEC. The Audit Committee met privately with the independent registered public accounting firm, our internal auditors and other members of management, each of whom has unrestricted access to the Audit Committee.

Based on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to the board that our audited consolidated financial statements be included in our transition report on Form 10-K for the transition period ended March 31, 2014 for filing with the SEC.

The Audit Committee

Robert R. Bennett, Chair

Frank Ianna

Sara Martinez Tucker

Executive Compensation

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

In connection with our change in fiscal year, this compensation discussion and analysis describes and analyzes our compensation program for our named executive officers for both the three-month transition period ended March 31, 2014 (Transition Period) as well as for the 12-month fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (fiscal year 2013).

The named executive officers for the Transition Period were: Daniel R. Hesse, President and CEO; Joseph J. Euteneuer, CFO; Dow Draper, President, Prepaid; Steven L. Elfman, President, Products and Services; and Robert L. Johnson, President, Sprint Retail and Chief Service and Information Technology Officer.

Compensation Overview

Philosophy and Objectives of Our Executive Compensation Program

Components of Our Executive Compensation Program

The major components of our executive compensation program are base salary, our short-term incentive compensation (STIC) plan, and our long-term incentive compensation (LTIC) plan. The base salaries as of March 31, 2014 and target opportunities under our fiscal year 2013 STIC and LTIC plans for our named executive officers are listed below.

Executive Compensation

CEO Compensation Ratio

Our mix of fixed and performance-based compensation target opportunities under the 2013 STIC and LTIC plans for Mr. Hesse is illustrated by the following:

Performance and Key Compensation Decisions

Fiscal year 2013 marked one of the most eventful years in Sprint’s history. We successfully completed the SoftBank Merger, which strengthened Sprint’s balance sheet and provided capital for continued investment in the modernization of our network, allowing us to upgrade our technology, expand our service offerings and to improve the quality and reliability of our product offerings. The SoftBank Merger also has allowed Sprint to leverage SoftBank’s operational and technological expertise. We also completed the acquisition (Clearwire Acquisition) of the remaining equity interests in Clearwire Corporation and its consolidated subsidiary Clearwire Communications LLC that we did not previously own, from which we expect to fully utilize and integrate Clearwire’s complementary 2.5 gigahertz (GHz) spectrum and tower resources for use in conjunction with our network modernization plan. In addition, we shut down the iDEN network in 2013, and through our network modernization project, we are repurposing the 800 megahertz (MHz) iDEN spectrum and are continuing our buildout of fourth generation (4G) services using Long Term Evolution (LTE). We also unveiled Sprint Spark^SM, a combination of advanced network and device technology capable of delivering up to 50-60 Mbps peak speeds today with increasing speed potential over time.

The Company also recognized the benefits of leadership continuity in light of the transformative SoftBank Merger and the ongoing execution of our network modernization plans. As a result, the Company entered into a new employment agreement in fiscal year 2013 with Mr. Hesse, which replaced his prior employment agreement. The agreement provides for a term through July 31, 2018, subject to earlier termination as provided in the agreement. The agreement provides for an annual base salary of $1,200,000 and participation in our STIC and LTIC plans. Also in fiscal year 2013, Mr. Hesse was granted a one-time award of 1,733,102 RSUs and 1,733,102 stock options. The RSUs and stock options vest on the fifth anniversary of their grant or, if earlier, upon an involuntary termination without cause or resignation with good

Executive Compensation

reason, or upon death or disability, and are subject to certain restrictions, including Mr. Hesse’s compliance with the restrictive covenants in his employment agreement and clawback at the discretion of the board of any value related to his knowing or intentional fraudulent or illegal conduct. These awards were intended to enhance our ability to retain Mr. Hesse’s leadership for a minimum period of at least five years during which the Company plans to undergo a transformative change.

We continued to build on the successes of fiscal year 2013 throughout the Transition Period, as we delivered operating income of $420 million, representing our best performance on this metric in over seven years. We also launched the revolutionary new Framily^SM plan during the Transition Period, which quickly became the fastest growing Sprint rate plan on record.

STIC Plan

Our STIC plan is our annual cash incentive plan, which is intended to ensure that annual incentives are tied to the successful achievement of critical operating and financial objectives that are the leading drivers of sustainable increases in stockholder value. As required under the SoftBank Merger Agreement, the Compensation Committee used two six-month performance periods for determining amounts payable under the 2013 STIC plan. The two six-month performance periods for 2013 provided flexibility to revisit the performance criteria at mid-year due to the anticipated transformative SoftBank Merger in 2013. The first performance period was from January 1, 2013 through June 30, 2013, and the second period was from July 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013. The SoftBank Merger closed on July 10, 2013. Each performance period had discrete performance objectives, and participants generally had to be employed on December 31, 2013 in order to receive compensation for either period.

The table below summarizes our key priorities during fiscal year 2013 and throughout the Transition Period as well as the metrics selected in support of these priorities, and the rationale for why each was chosen by the Compensation Committee.

Executive Compensation

The Compensation Committee approved the effective aggregate payout percentage for the 2013 STIC plan at 118.96% of the target award opportunity for all eligible employees who participated in the 2013 STIC plan for the full fiscal year 2013, including our named executive officers, based on actual performance results. Our 2013 STIC plan objectives, targets, and actual results are summarized in the tables below.

Payouts under the 2013 STIC plan were capped at 200% of target opportunity. The payout for the second half-year performance period was computed by adding the first half-year performance achievements that were above the 200% payout level for Sprint platform net additions and adjusted EBITDA to the second half-year achievement. We outperformed our adjusted EBITDA target for each of the six-month periods during fiscal year 2013; however, we underperformed on our performance objectives set for Sprint platform postpaid subscriber churn and Sprint platform net additions in the second half of 2013, despite having highest-ever Sprint platform subscribers at December 31, 2013 of 53.9 million. This occurred at a time of continued modernization of our network, including our expansion of 4G LTE to more than 200 million people and launching Sprint Spark^TM in 11 markets as of December 31, 2013.

Our Compensation Committee did not establish financial and operational objectives and respective weightings and targets for the Transition Period. As a result, no payouts under our STIC plan related to performance during the Transition Period were made.

LTIC Plan

Our LTIC plan is designed to encourage retention, link payment of performance-based awards to achievement of financial and operational objectives critical to our long-term success, and create commonality of interests between our executives and our stockholders. By dovetailing with the STIC plan, it is also intended to create balance between short-term, or annual, performance goals and longer-term objectives that are critical to growing and sustaining stockholder value. We granted two types of awards under our 2013 LTIC plan:

Executive Compensation

The Compensation Committee selected the following primary objective to support our efforts with respect to the performance-based RSUs under the 2013 LTIC plan:

The Compensation Committee selected cumulative adjusted EBITDA as the primary objective in order to emphasize long-term focus on earnings and growing subscribers and revenues. Sprint offers wireless services on a postpaid and prepaid payment basis to retail subscribers and also on a wholesale and affiliate basis, which includes the sale of wireless services that utilize the Sprint network but are sold under a wholesaler’s brand. Payment on the adjusted EBITDA objective noted above in excess of 150% up to 200% of the targeted opportunity is contingent on achieving an additional objective of retail net subscriber additions, which includes both prepaid and postpaid additions but excludes wholesale and affiliate additions. The Compensation Committee believes use of retail net subscriber additions supports Sprint’s core focus of growing our subscriber base. Failure to attain the minimum threshold achievement level on the cumulative adjusted EBITDA performance objective results in forfeiture of the associated opportunity.

Pursuant to the terms of the SoftBank Merger Agreement, we delayed the grant of awards under the 2013 LTIC plan until after closing of the SoftBank Merger. As a result, awards under the 2013 LTIC plan were not granted on our typical schedule in February. Recognizing that participants would have received additional RSUs through the SoftBank Merger’s equity exchange process in the absence of this delay of the traditional February grant and that participants would have benefited from the value creation since February 2013 with respect to those awards, the Compensation Committee increased participants’ overall 2013 LTIC plan target opportunities by 15%. The Compensation Committee decided such increase also was appropriate in order to reward participants for their performance in the first half of 2013. The adjusted target opportunities under the 2013 LTIC plan for our executives are reflected in “—Compensation Overview—Components of Our Executive Compensation Program.” Mr. Draper did not participate in our 2013 LTIC plan, but he received a sign-on award of time-based RSUs on September 10, 2013, which is reflected in “—Compensation Overview—Components of Our Executive Compensation Program.”

Consistent with its decisions regarding the STIC plan for the Transition Period, our Compensation Committee did not establish financial and operational objectives and respective weightings and targets for the Transition Period. As a result, no grants under our LTIC plan related to performance were made during the Transition Period.

Corporate Governance Highlights

We endeavor to maintain good governance standards, including with respect to our executive compensation practices. Several highlights are listed below:

Executive Compensation

Setting Executive Compensation

Role of Compensation Consultant and Executive Officers

The Compensation Committee has retained Cook as its independent compensation consultant. Cook provides no services to us other than advisory services for executive and director compensation and has no other relationships with the Company. Cook works with management only at the request and under the direction of the Compensation Committee and only on matters for which the Compensation Committee has oversight responsibility. The Compensation Committee has assessed the independence of Cook and other advisors to the Compensation Committee, as required under NYSE listing rules. The Compensation Committee has also considered and assessed all relevant factors, including those required by the SEC that could give rise to a potential conflict of interest with respect to Cook and its other advisors during 2013. Based on this review, the Compensation Committee did not identify any conflict of interest raised by the work performed by any advisors to the Compensation Committee.

Representatives of Cook attend Compensation Committee meetings at the Compensation Committee’s request and provide guidance to the Compensation Committee on a variety of compensation issues. The primary point of contact at Cook frequently communicates with the chair of the Compensation Committee and interacts with all Compensation Committee members without management present.

Cook has reviewed the compensation components and levels for our named executive officers and advised the Compensation Committee on the appropriateness of our compensation programs, including our incentive and equity-based compensation plans, retention incentives and proposed employment agreements, as these matters arose during the year. The Compensation Committee has directed that Cook provide this advice taking into account our overall executive compensation philosophy as described above. Cook prepares benchmarking data discussed below, reviews the results with the Compensation Committee, and provides recommendations and an opinion on the reasonableness of new compensation plans, programs and arrangements.

In addition to its ongoing support of the Compensation Committee and continuous advice on compensation design, levels and emerging market practices, Cook periodically conducts a comprehensive review of our overall executive compensation program, including direct and indirect elements of compensation, to ensure that the program operates in support of our short- and long-term financial and strategic objectives and that it aligns with evolving corporate governance “best practices.”

Executive Compensation

Our CEO periodically discusses the design of and makes recommendations with respect to our compensation programs and the compensation levels of our other named executive officers and certain key personnel with the Compensation Committee. Our CEO does not make recommendations to the Compensation Committee with regard to his own compensation; rather, Cook provides the Compensation Committee with an annual report on CEO compensation and a range of alternatives with regard to potential changes.

Process for Setting Executive Compensation

The Compensation Committee annually reviews the compensation packages of our named executive officers in the form of “tally sheets.” These tally sheets value each component of compensation and benefits, including a summary of the outstanding equity holdings of each named executive officer as of year-end and the value of such holdings at various assumed stock prices. The tally sheets also set forth the estimated value that each of our named executive officers would realize upon termination under various scenarios.

The Compensation Committee uses these tally sheets when considering adjustments to base salaries and awards of equity-based or other remuneration and in establishing incentive plan target opportunity levels as follows:

Although the Compensation Committee reviews and considers the amounts realizable by our named executive officers under different termination scenarios, including those in connection with a change in control, as well as the current equity-based award holdings, these are not the primary considerations in the assessment and determination of annual compensation for our named executive officers.

Use of Benchmarking Data

To assist in setting total compensation levels that are reasonably competitive, the Compensation Committee annually reviews market trends in executive compensation and a competitive analysis prepared by Cook. This information is derived from the most recent proxy statement data of companies in a peer group of telecommunications and high-technology companies and, where limited in its functional position match to our executives, is supplemented with data on our peer group from a published compensation survey prepared by Towers Watson of approximately 80 participating industry companies all with revenues exceeding $4 billion.

Taking into consideration the recommendation of Cook, the Compensation Committee determines companies for our peer group based on similarity of their business model and product offerings as well as comparability from a size perspective, including annual revenue, market capitalization, net income, enterprise value and number of employees. For example, our

Executive Compensation

revenue is above the median of our peer group while our enterprise value is below the median. The Compensation Committee approved the use of the following 12 companies for its fiscal year 2013 executive compensation benchmarking analysis:

AT&T, Inc., CenturyLink, Inc., Comcast Corporation, Computer Sciences Corporation, Dell Inc., DIRECTV, Motorola Solutions, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Texas Instruments Incorporated, Time Warner Cable, Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., and Xerox Corporation.

In September 2013, we made the following changes to our peer group for future executive compensation decisions: removed Dell Inc. from our peer group given its transition to a privately-held company and added Cisco Systems, Inc., EMC Corporation and Intel Corporation, based on size, business comparability and other relevant factors.

The Compensation Committee does not follow a specific formula in making its pay decisions, but rather uses benchmarks as a frame of reference and generally targets total compensation at the median of our peer group to reflect our relative position within it. Based on performance against predetermined goals and changes in total stockholder return over time, this approach results in an opportunity to earn total payouts above median market rates for over-achievement and below the median for under-achievement relative to the peer group. The Compensation Committee exercises its judgment by taking into consideration a multitude of other important factors such as experience, individual performance, and internal pay equity in setting target compensation levels, but actual payouts under our variable incentive plans are primarily determined based on formulaic outcomes. With respect to our named executive officers’ total targeted compensation for 2013, excluding Mr. Hesse’s retention awards, Messrs. Elfman and Euteneuer were above the median, and the remaining named executive officers, including our CEO, were below the median for the peer group.

Primary Components of Executive Compensation

Following is a discussion and analysis of the primary elements of our named executive officer compensation program. These components are available to each named executive officer throughout a typical 12 month period; however, not all were implicated during the three-month Transition Period.

Base Salary

Base salary is designed to attract and retain executives. Our named executive officers’ salaries are based on a number of factors, including the nature, responsibilities and reporting relationships of the position, individual performance of the executive, salary levels for incumbents in comparable positions at peer companies, as well as other executives within our organization, and experience and tenure of the executive.

Mr. Johnson’s base salary was increased to $625,000 in 2013 due to a significant increase in job responsibilities as President, Sprint Retail and Chief Service and Information Technology Officer. Mr. Draper’s base salary was increased to $375,000 in 2013 due to a significant increase in job responsibilities as President, Prepaid. The base salaries of both Messrs. Johnson and Draper after their respective salary increases remained below median for the peer group.

None of our named executive officers received an increase in base salary during the Transition Period.

Executive Compensation

Short-Term Incentive Compensation Plan

Our STIC plan is our annual cash bonus plan, which we believe will ultimately result in an increase in stockholder value because our incentives under it are linked to business objectives that we believe will deliver our long-term success.

As required under the SoftBank Merger Agreement, the Compensation Committee used two six-month performance periods for determining the amount of plan payments under the 2013 STIC plan rather than one annual performance period. Based on performance against stated objectives, our named executive officers must have been employed through December 31, 2013 in order to be eligible to receive full compensation for the performance period. A prorated payout is received by employees who are terminated during the year as the result of death, disability, retirement, or involuntary termination without cause.

In February 2013, the Compensation Committee established financial and operational objectives and their respective weightings and targets for the first half-year 2013 performance period, continuing to balance our senior management team’s and other plan participants’ focus among our most critical financial and strategic objectives, which remained as growing revenue and earnings while increasing subscriber growth and reducing churn. To that end, the Compensation Committee established the following objectives and weightings for the first half of 2013:

Following the close of the SoftBank Merger, the Compensation Committee reaffirmed the stated objectives from the first half-year 2013 performance period by establishing the same objectives for the second half of 2013.

To further our goal of tying a significant portion of each named executive officer’s total annual compensation to our business performance, the STIC plan provides for a payment equal to the named executive officer’s targeted opportunity (set at a percentage of his base salary) only if our actual results meet the targets. Similarly, a payment in excess of a named executive officer’s targeted opportunity may be made if our actual performance exceeds the targeted objectives (capped at 200%), a payment below targeted opportunity may be made if our actual performance is below the target objectives but exceeded the minimum threshold level, and no payout would be made if our actual performance does not exceed the minimum threshold level. As previously disclosed on Sprint’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 4, 2012, Mr. Hesse agreed to a reduction in his target opportunity under the 2012 STIC plan from 200% to 170%, which returned his incentive opportunity to his 2010 level. Also, in connection with Mr. Draper’s entry into an employment agreement with Sprint and his increased responsibilities, Mr. Draper’s targeted STIC opportunity (expressed as a percentage of his base salary) increased in 2013.

As discussed above, the Compensation Committee did not establish STIC plan financial and operational objectives and respective weightings and targets for the Transition Period.

Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan

Our LTIC plan serves our compensation objectives by linking payment to achievement of financial and operational objectives and by linking executive interests with those of our stockholders.

Executive Compensation

Pursuant to the SoftBank Merger Agreement and following evaluation of the factors critical to driving long-term stockholder value, the Compensation Committee established the components and terms of the 2013 LTIC plan. Since 2009, the Compensation Committee has used performance units (cash-settled) as a component of awards under the LTIC plan. This was done during our turnaround phase when the stock price was low and highly volatile. However, the Compensation Committee returned to awards issued under the 2013 LTIC plan comprised solely of equity in light of the transformative SoftBank Merger and the desire to provide incentives for achieving long-term growth and alignment of stockholder interests. The Compensation Committee granted half of executives’ LTIC plan opportunities in the form of performance-based RSUs and half in time-based RSUs. The time-based RSUs were granted as a component in order to promote executive retention while allowing us to set aggressive performance goals for the performance-based RSUs component. In light of these considerations, the Compensation Committee established awards under the 2013 LTIC plan as follows:

The 2013 LTIC plan places a longer-term focus on Company earnings and growing subscribers and revenues through establishing cumulative adjusted EBITDA as the primary performance objective. This metric was chosen for the performance period because it represents a critical financial and strategic objective. Payment on the adjusted EBITDA objective in excess of 150% up to 200% of the targeted opportunity is contingent on achieving an additional objective of retail net subscriber additions, which includes both prepaid and postpaid additions but excludes wholesale and affiliate additions. The Compensation Committee believes use of retail net subscriber additions as a performance objective under the 2013 LTIC plan supports Sprint’s core focus of growing our subscriber base.

Mr. Johnson’s target compensation under the 2013 LTIC plan increased in connection with his increased responsibilities discussed under “—Base Salary” above. His LTIC opportunity after the increase remained below median for the peer group. Otherwise, there were no changes in our named executive officers’ LTIC plan opportunities for 2013 compared to 2012.

As discussed above, the Compensation Committee did not grant awards under the LTIC plan during the Transition Period.

Other Compensation Decisions

On September 10, 2013, Mr. Elfman entered into an amendment to his employment agreement. In exchange for continuing his employment through the earlier of certain specified employment terminations and January 2, 2015, Mr. Elfman is entitled to the following under the amendment: (1) relocation of Mr. Elfman’s place of performance to Seattle, Washington, (2) any change in his reporting relationship to anyone other than the chief executive officer or the board would constitute an event of “good reason” as defined in the agreement; and (3) following termination under certain circumstances and execution of a general release, continued and/or prorated accelerated vesting of his then-outstanding equity as if he was involuntarily terminated without cause on his termination date.

Effective September 6, 2013, Mr. Draper entered into an employment agreement and was appointed President, Prepaid of Sprint. Mr. Draper formerly was Senior Vice President and Manager, Retail of Clearwire. On September 10, 2013, Mr. Draper received a sign-on award of

Executive Compensation

131,579 RSUs. On February 21, 2014, Mr. Draper entered into an amendment to his employment agreement, which provided for tax assistance with respect to the Company’s payment of Mr. Draper’s state home sale transaction expenses in connection with his relocation from Kirkland, Washington to the vicinity of our Overland Park, Kansas headquarters as required under his employment agreement. These expenses are included in the summary compensation table in the “All Other Compensation” column for the Transition Period.

As a result of the SoftBank Merger, which complicated our ability to accurately measure performance based on the goals that were originally set, the performance units and performance-based RSUs granted under the 2012 LTIC plan and, with respect to the 2013 annual performance period, the 2011 LTIC plan, were deemed met at target. Amounts deemed earned at target for these awards are included in the summary compensation table in the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column for fiscal year 2013.

Other Components of Executive Compensation

Our named executive officers’ total rewards opportunities consist of a number of other elements important to our compensation philosophy for both fiscal year 2013 and the Transition Period of attracting, retaining, and motivating our named executive officers:

Employee Benefit Plans and Programs. Our compensation program includes a comprehensive array of health and welfare benefits in which our eligible employees, including our named executive officers, are eligible to participate. We pay all of the costs for some of these benefit plans, and participants contribute a portion of the cost for other benefit plans.

Retirement Programs. Our retirement program consists of the Sprint Corporation 401(k) Plan, which provides participants a fixed matching contribution on up to 4% of eligible compensation an opportunity to build financial security for their future. The amount of any matching contributions made by us to participating named executive officers is included in the “All Other Compensation” column of the summary compensation table.

Deferred Compensation. Certain employees, including our named executive officers, are offered the opportunity to participate in the Sprint Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan, a nonqualified and unfunded plan, under which they may defer to future years the receipt of certain compensation in addition to that eligible under the 401(k) plan. Participants may elect to defer up to 50% of base salary, up to 75% of STIC plan payments, and up to 75% of cash-based performance unit payouts made under the LTIC plan. We believe this plan helps attract and retain executives by providing the participant another tax efficient retirement plan. Participants elect to allocate deferred and any matching contributions among one or more hypothetical investment options, which include one option that tracks our common stock and other options that track broad-based bond and equity indices. Our plan provides for a matching contribution using the same matching contribution percentage as our 401(k) plan of eligible earnings above the applicable annual limit, which is intended to compensate highly-compensated employees for limitations placed on our 401(k) plan by federal tax law. For each of fiscal year 2013 and the Transition Period, Mr. Hesse participated in the Sprint Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan.

Personal Benefits and Perquisites. The limited personal benefits and perquisites that we provide to our named executive officers are intended to promote executive retention and to allow our executives to maximize their focus on the Company. These benefits are summarized in footnote 6 to the summary compensation table. As a result of the recommendations contained in an independent third-party security study, the Compensation Committee established an overall

Executive Compensation

security program for Mr. Hesse. Under the security program, we currently provide Mr. Hesse with residential security systems and equipment, and he is required to use our aircraft for business and non-business travel. We believe these measures ensure the safety of Mr. Hesse and allow him to devote his full attention to Company business. Mr. Hesse is permitted to have his family accompany him on the corporate aircraft for business and non-business travel.

Change in Control. If a transaction that could result in a change in control were under consideration, we expect that our named executive officers would face uncertainties about how the transaction may affect their continued employment with us. We believe it is in our stockholders’ best interest if our named executive officers remain employed and focused on our business through any transition period following a change in control and remain independent and objective when considering possible transactions that may be in stockholders’ best interests but possibly result in the termination of their employment. Our change in control benefits accomplish this goal by providing each eligible named executive officer with a meaningful severance benefit in the event that a change in control occurs and, within a specified time period of the change in control, his employment is involuntarily terminated without “cause” or voluntarily terminated for “good reason.”

The Sprint Corporation Change in Control Severance Plan, which we refer to as the CIC plan, provides severance benefits to a select group of senior executives, including our named executive officers, in the event of a qualified termination of employment in connection with a transaction that results in a change in control. Any of these benefits payable would be reduced to the extent of any severance benefit otherwise available under any other applicable policy, program, or plan so that there would be no duplication of benefits. The benefits upon termination in connection with a change in control to which our named executive officers are entitled, as described in “—Potential Payments upon Termination of Employment or Change in Control,” are likewise competitive within our peer group.

The SoftBank Merger was a change in control under the Change in Control Severance Plan. On September 17, 2013, our board amended the plan to modify the definition of “Change in Control” to (i) exclude acquisitions by SoftBank or its controlled affiliates from the change in control trigger associated with a group (within the meaning of Section 13(d)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act) acquiring 30 percent or more of the combined voting power of the Company, and (ii) include Sprint Corporation ceasing to have equity securities trading on a national securities exchange as a change in control trigger. The board also amended the plan to include an “offset” of change in control benefits for pay and benefits received during any “WARN” notification period to align with such an offset provided in the broad-based separation plan.

Tax Deductibility of Compensation

Section 162(m) limits to $1 million the amount of non-performance-based remuneration that we may deduct from our taxable income in any tax year with respect to our CEO and the three other most highly compensated executive officers, other than the CFO, at the end of the year. Section 162(m) provides, however, that we may deduct from our taxable income without regard to the $1 million limit the full value of all “qualified performance-based compensation.”

Our base salary and perquisites and other personal benefits are not considered “qualified performance-based compensation” and therefore are subject to the limit on deductibility. Our STIC plan and LTIC plan awards may be considered “qualified performance-based compensation” if certain requirements are met, including among others that the maximum number of stock option or full value share awards and the maximum amount of other cash

Executive Compensation

performance-based remuneration that may be payable to any one executive officer has been disclosed to and approved by stockholders prior to the award or payment.

The Compensation Committee considers Section 162(m) deductibility in designing our compensation program and incentive-based compensation plans. In general, we may design our STIC and LTIC plans to be compliant with the performance-based compensation rules of Section 162(m) in order to maximize deductibility. In certain circumstances, however, the Compensation Committee has determined it necessary in order to retain executives and attract candidates for senior level positions to offer compensation packages in which the non-performance-based elements exceed the $1 million Section 162(m) limit. The Compensation Committee makes no assurance that such compensation will be fully deductible for federal income tax purposes.

The awards under our 2013 STIC plan and performance-based RSUs under the 2013 LTIC plan are designed so that they may qualify as “qualified performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m), except for those awards to Mr. Johnson due to the terms of his employment agreement.

For the 2013 STIC plan, the Compensation Committee for the first six-month performance period, and a sub-committee comprised of Messrs. Bethune and Mullen (the “Section 16 Sub-Committee”) of the Compensation Committee for the second six- month performance period, established Section 162(m) objectives for the named executive officers potentially subject to Section 162(m) at a small fraction of a percentage of our adjusted operating income. The Compensation Committee and Section 16 Sub-Committee are precluded from exercising upward discretion to the payout achieved under these objectives. The Section 16 Sub-Committee exercised its discretion to make payments under the 2013 STIC plan at levels below the payout achieved under the Section 162(m) objectives for both performance periods during 2013 as guided by the performance metrics discussed under “Performance and Key Compensation Decisions—STIC Plan.”

For the performance-based RSU award for the 2013 LTIC plan, the Section 16 Sub-Committee established a Section 162(m) objective for the named executive officers potentially subject to Section 162(m) based on cumulative adjusted operating income during a single two-year performance period of 2014-2015. The Section 16 Sub-Committee is precluded from exercising upward discretion to the payout achieved under this objective.

The Section 16 Sub-Committee did not establish Section 162(m) objectives under the STIC plan or the LTIC plan for the Transition Period.

Stock Ownership Guidelines

We have stock ownership guidelines for our named executive officers and other members of our senior management team. The board believes ownership by executives of a meaningful financial stake in our Company serves to align executives’ interests with those of our stockholders. Our guidelines encourage our CEO to hold shares of our common stock with a value equal to five times his base salary, and encourage the other named executive officers to hold shares of our common stock with a value equal to three times their respective base salaries. Eligible shares and share equivalents counted toward ownership consist of:

Executive Compensation

Persons subject to the stock ownership guidelines have five years beginning on the date on which the person becomes subject to the ownership guidelines to achieve the ownership requirement. For fiscal year 2013, all of our named executive officers who had been with the Company for at least five years had met the stock ownership guidelines.

Stockholder Say-on-Pay Vote

We provide our stockholders with the opportunity to cast an annual advisory vote on named executive officer compensation (a “say-on-pay proposal”). At our last annual meeting of stockholders, 81% of the votes cast on the say-on-pay proposal at that meeting were voted in favor of the proposal. The Compensation Committee considered the voting results at discussions among its members during its meetings, and the Compensation Committee believes this vote affirms stockholders’ support of the Company’s approach to executive compensation. As a result of this consideration, we did not change our approach to named executive officer compensation in fiscal year 2013 or the Transition Period. The Compensation Committee will continue to consider the outcome of the Company’s say-on-pay votes when making future compensation decisions for the named executive officers.

Compensation Committee Report

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed Sprint’s Compensation Discussion and Analysis with management. Based on these reviews and discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the board that Sprint’s Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement and the transition report on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2014.

The Compensation Committee

Gordon M. Bethune, Chair

Ronald D. Fisher

Adm. Michael G. Mullen

Relationship of Compensation Practices to Risk Management

We have assessed whether there are any risks arising from our compensation policies and practices for our employees and factors that may affect the likelihood of excessive risk taking. Based on that review, we have concluded that our compensation policies and practices do not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

In coming to this conclusion, in late 2013 and early 2014, our human resources department reviewed the Company’s incentive plans, surveying sales- and non-sales-related compensation programs, as well as executive and non-executive compensation programs. Pay philosophies, performance objectives and overall incentive plan designs were reviewed. Human resources discussed plan elements with representatives from the business functions responsible for incentive plan design and administration. Design features were assessed to determine whether there is a likelihood that incentive plans could encourage excessive risk-taking resulting in a material adverse effect on the Company and to ensure that appropriate governance is in place to mitigate risk under unforeseen circumstances. The results of this assessment were reviewed by the Compensation Committee in February and May 2014. In addition, the Compensation Committee’s independent consultant, Cook, considered risk in all aspects of the

Executive Compensation

plans in which our executives participate and advised the Compensation Committee accordingly. Cook confirmed that there are no aspects of the programs described in the preceding Compensation Discussion and Analysis that create an incentive to take risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Summary Compensation Table

The table below summarizes the compensation of our named executive officers that is attributable to the three-month Transition Period ended March 31, 2014 and the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011. The named executive officers are our President and CEO, our CFO, and our three other most highly compensated executive officers serving at March 31, 2014. Amounts included in “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” for 2013 include performance units granted under the 2012 LTIC plan, which, as provided for in the SoftBank Merger Agreement, were converted as if target performance had been achieved as of the closing date of the SoftBank Merger. Although these awards do not vest until December 31, 2014, the target amounts are required to be reported as earned in 2013 and account for nearly all of the increase over 2012 non-equity incentive plan compensation.

As previously disclosed, on May 4, 2012, Mr. Hesse agreed to a reduction in his 2012 base pay to repay amounts associated with a discretionary adjustment the Compensation Committee made under the incentive plan payouts for 2011 for the impact of the iPhone^® on Sprint’s financial results. Amounts reported in the summary compensation table under the “Salary,” “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” and “Total” columns for 2012 and 2013 reflect amounts paid or awarded to Mr. Hesse before taking into account such repayments. The repayments are disclosed in supplemental columns under the headings “Salary Foregone” and “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation Foregone.”

Each of our named executive officers has an employment agreement with us. For more information regarding our compensation philosophy and a discussion of the elements of our compensation program, see “—Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”

Executive Compensation

Executive Compensation

For the 2013 RSU awards, the value represents the aggregate grant date fair market value computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 as of the date the Compensation Committee approved the applicable objectives and targets for the two-year performance period under the 2013 LTIC plan. The performance-based RSUs granted under the 2013 LTIC plan are based on target opportunity and vest on February 27, 2016 but are also subject to performance-based vesting conditions. Payout values for performance-based RSUs under the 2013 LTIC plan based on maximum performance and grant date fair market value would be $15,880,768 for Mr. Hesse, $4,631,892 for Mr. Euteneuer, $4,301,034 for Mr. Elfman, and $2,117,428 for Mr. Johnson. The time-based RSUs granted under the 2013 LTIC plan vest on February 27, 2016. The RSUs under the 2011 LTIC plan are allocated one-third to each annual performance period from 2011-2013 and represent the aggregate grant date fair market value computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 as of the date the Compensation Committee approved the applicable objectives and targets for the 2013 performance period. Each annual performance target was set by the Compensation Committee at the start of each respective single year performance period under the 2011 LTIC plan. The sign-on RSUs granted to Mr. Draper vest 25% on each of September 10, 2014, September 10, 2015, September 10, 2016 and September 10, 2017; the reported value represents the aggregate grant date fair market value computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. For more information regarding Mr. Hesse’s retention award, see “—Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Setting Executive Compensation—Other Compensation Decisions for 2013.” For more information regarding the 2013 LTIC plan, see “—Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Primary Components of Executive Compensation—Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan.” For more information regarding Mr. Draper’s sign-on award, see “—Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Compensation Overview—Components of Our Executive Compensation Program.”

Executive Compensation

With respect to the 2013 STIC plan, with the exception of Mr. Draper, each named executive officer earned a payout of 118.96% of his targeted opportunity based on actual performance in 2013. Mr. Draper was not eligible to participate in the first half-year performance period under Sprint’s 2013 STIC plan because he was not a Sprint employee until the second half-year performance period. Mr. Draper earned a payout of 63.83% of his targeted opportunity based on actual performance from July 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013. For more information regarding our STIC plan, see “—Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Primary Components of Executive Compensation—Short-Term Incentive Compensation Plan.”

With respect to the performance units under the 2011 LTIC plan, the amount shown is the amount allocable to the 2013 performance period with respect to performance units granted by the Compensation Committee on February 23, 2011. The performance unit award under the 2011 LTIC plan is allocated one-third to each annual performance period for three years (2011-2013) and is payable in cash after the end of the three-year period. Each annual performance target is set by the Compensation Committee at the start of each respective single-year performance period, and the payout of the performance unit award may range from 0% to 150% based on the achievement of specified results. As a result of the SoftBank Merger, the performance units granted under the 2011 LTIC plan with respect to the 2013 annual performance period were deemed met at target, resulting in an aggregate payout percentage for our named executive officers of 100% for those awards. Performance units granted under the 2012 LTIC plan were deemed met at target as a result of the SoftBank Merger, resulting in an aggregate payout percentage for our named executive officers of 100% for those awards. See “—Note 2—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” in Sprint’s Transition Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014 and “—Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Primary Components of Executive Compensation—Other Compensation Decisions.”

Executive Compensation

Transition Period

For Mr. Draper, consists of relocation costs incurred in connection with relocation of Mr. Draper’s principal residence to the Overland Park, Kansas area. For more information regarding Mr. Draper’s relocation, see “—Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Primary Components of Executive Compensation—Other Compensation Decisions.”

For Mr. Draper, consists of tax gross-ups in connection with relocation of Mr. Draper’s principal residence to the Overland Park, Kansas area. For more information regarding Mr. Draper’s relocation, see “—Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Primary Components of Executive Compensation—Other Compensation Decisions.

Executive Compensation

Fiscal Year 2013

For Mr. Elfman, consists of relocation costs in connection with relocation of Mr. Elfman’s principal place of work to Seattle, Washington. For more information regarding Mr. Elfman’s relocation, see “—Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Primary Components of Executive Compensation—Other Compensation Decisions.”

Executive Compensation

Grants of Plan-Based Awards

Transition Period. No grants of plan-based awards were made to our named executive officers during the Transition Period.

Fiscal year 2013. The table below summarizes awards under our 2013 STIC and LTIC incentive plans and other option awards to our named executive officers for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. These awards consisted of the following: