Key Takeaways
- • The Big Ten and SEC commissioned FTI Consulting to produce a white paper opposing consolidated media rights pooling and amendments to the 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act, arguing the proposals would reduce long-term revenue and introduce regulatory chaos rather than solve college sports funding issues.
- • Saving College Sports (SCS), backed by Texas Tech billionaire booster Cody Campbell, has proposed pooling FBS media rights as a revenue solution; the Big Ten-SEC study directly counters this model, asserting current decentralized conference structures will generate greater value than consolidation.
- • The white paper argues that recent NBA media deal gains cited by SCS as a pooling success model were actually driven by market dynamics and strategic asset packaging, not consolidation itself—a critical distinction undermining the consolidation thesis.
- • Federal oversight authority proposed by SCS would transfer control of scheduling, rivalries, and brand stewardship from individual conferences to a federal committee, representing a structural power shift the Big Ten and SEC actively oppose.
- • The research projects that the current conference-controlled ecosystem will deliver superior long-term revenue outcomes compared to consolidated alternatives, establishing the Big Ten and SEC's strategic position against pending legislative or regulatory changes to college sports media governance.
Summary
The Big Ten and Southeastern Conference have formally challenged one of college sports' emerging policy narratives by releasing a commissioned white paper that directly opposes consolidated media rights pooling and attempts to amend the 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act. The research, conducted by FTI Consulting and released Thursday, asserts that such consolidation "would not save college sports but would actually introduce bureaucracy and legal chaos, and projections show it is likely to reduce revenue over the long term."
The white paper targets proposals advanced by Saving College Sports (SCS), an advocacy organization backed by Texas Tech billionaire booster Cody Campbell. SCS has positioned consolidated FBS media rights as a solution to financial instability in college athletics, modeling its approach on recent NBA media negotiations. However, the Big Ten-SEC study directly challenges this analogy, arguing that NBA deal gains resulted from market dynamics and sophisticated asset packaging rather than rights consolidation itself—fundamentally undermining SCS's primary precedent.
The Big Ten and SEC raise three substantive objections to consolidation. First, they argue their current decentralized structure projects to deliver superior long-term value compared to pooled alternatives. Second, they contend that the federal oversight committee proposed by SCS would consolidate control over critical operational functions—including scheduling, rivalries, and brand stewardship—currently managed by individual conferences, representing a structural loss of competitive control. Third, they assert that existing conference structures already maximize value extraction through their current market positioning.
The leagues declined to fully disclose the white paper's authorship beyond confirming involvement of "several authors" representing both conferences, leaving ambiguous whether Commissioners Greg Sankey (SEC) and Tony Petitti (Big Ten) directly authored portions of the analysis. This strategic opacity may reflect institutional preference to distance commissioner-level leadership from what amounts to a direct regulatory lobbying effort ahead of potential congressional action on Sports Broadcasting Act amendments.
The white paper targets proposals advanced by Saving College Sports (SCS), an advocacy organization backed by Texas Tech billionaire booster Cody Campbell. SCS has positioned consolidated FBS media rights as a solution to financial instability in college athletics, modeling its approach on recent NBA media negotiations. However, the Big Ten-SEC study directly challenges this analogy, arguing that NBA deal gains resulted from market dynamics and sophisticated asset packaging rather than rights consolidation itself—fundamentally undermining SCS's primary precedent.
The Big Ten and SEC raise three substantive objections to consolidation. First, they argue their current decentralized structure projects to deliver superior long-term value compared to pooled alternatives. Second, they contend that the federal oversight committee proposed by SCS would consolidate control over critical operational functions—including scheduling, rivalries, and brand stewardship—currently managed by individual conferences, representing a structural loss of competitive control. Third, they assert that existing conference structures already maximize value extraction through their current market positioning.
The leagues declined to fully disclose the white paper's authorship beyond confirming involvement of "several authors" representing both conferences, leaving ambiguous whether Commissioners Greg Sankey (SEC) and Tony Petitti (Big Ten) directly authored portions of the analysis. This strategic opacity may reflect institutional preference to distance commissioner-level leadership from what amounts to a direct regulatory lobbying effort ahead of potential congressional action on Sports Broadcasting Act amendments.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.