Key Takeaways
- • The Big Ten and SEC commissioned FTI Consulting to produce a white paper opposing federal media pooling and reopening the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, arguing consolidated media rights would "reduce revenue over the long term" and introduce "bureaucracy and legal chaos."
- • The research directly counters Cody Campbell's Saving College Sports (SCS) initiative, which advocates for pooled FBS media rights as a revenue-generation model modeled on recent NBA media deal dynamics.
- • The white paper contends that current conference-controlled structures—including scheduling, rivalries, and brand stewardship—would be compromised under a proposed federal oversight committee, and that the NBA deal gains SCS cites resulted from market dynamics and asset packaging strategy, not pooling mechanics.
- • The leagues project that the existing decentralized conference structure will deliver superior long-term value compared to any consolidated alternative proposed by reform advocates.
Summary
The Big Ten and SEC have positioned themselves in direct opposition to proposals for consolidated college sports media rights through a commissioned white paper released on Thursday. The research, conducted by FTI Consulting on behalf of both conferences, challenges the narrative promoted by Texas Tech billionaire booster Cody Campbell and his organization Saving College Sports (SCS), which has advocated reopening the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 to enable pooled FBS media rights.
The white paper's core argument rests on three interconnected claims. First, the leagues assert that current revenue projections under the existing conference structure exceed potential gains from consolidated media rights. Second, they contend that a federal oversight committee—as proposed by SCS—would strip the conferences of operational control over critical functions including scheduling, rivalries management, and brand stewardship. Third, the research disputes SCS's comparative model by arguing that recent NBA media deal increases stemmed not from pooling mechanisms but from market dynamics and strategic asset packaging.
The leagues have declined to publicly identify specific authors of the white paper, instead noting that "several authors" representing Big Ten and SEC interests contributed to the analysis. While commissioners Greg Sankey (SEC) and Tony Petitti (Big Ten) were mentioned as potential contributors, the conferences have not confirmed their direct involvement in authorship.
This white paper represents a significant escalation in institutional pushback against media consolidation proposals that have gained traction among certain reform advocates in college sports. The research appears designed to provide empirical cover for potential congressional communications and stakeholder discussions regarding proposed amendments to broadcast rights frameworks. For institutional investors and alternative investment professionals tracking college sports media rights evolution, the research signals that the two largest revenue-generating conferences view decentralized media control as strategically essential to long-term valuation.
The white paper's core argument rests on three interconnected claims. First, the leagues assert that current revenue projections under the existing conference structure exceed potential gains from consolidated media rights. Second, they contend that a federal oversight committee—as proposed by SCS—would strip the conferences of operational control over critical functions including scheduling, rivalries management, and brand stewardship. Third, the research disputes SCS's comparative model by arguing that recent NBA media deal increases stemmed not from pooling mechanisms but from market dynamics and strategic asset packaging.
The leagues have declined to publicly identify specific authors of the white paper, instead noting that "several authors" representing Big Ten and SEC interests contributed to the analysis. While commissioners Greg Sankey (SEC) and Tony Petitti (Big Ten) were mentioned as potential contributors, the conferences have not confirmed their direct involvement in authorship.
This white paper represents a significant escalation in institutional pushback against media consolidation proposals that have gained traction among certain reform advocates in college sports. The research appears designed to provide empirical cover for potential congressional communications and stakeholder discussions regarding proposed amendments to broadcast rights frameworks. For institutional investors and alternative investment professionals tracking college sports media rights evolution, the research signals that the two largest revenue-generating conferences view decentralized media control as strategically essential to long-term valuation.
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.