MIRAMAR BEACH, Fla. — On Wednesday afternoon, Trev Alberts, the Texas A&M athletic director, pivoted to face a journalist.
This time, he was posing the questions.
“Have you gone through all 111 pages?” he inquired with a grin before quickly departing down the corridor.
During the yearly spring gatherings of the conference held in the Florida panhandle, executives and coaches from the SEC were informed, even as their sessions were underway, about the unveiling of what might be the most extensive, cross-party legislative proposal to date aimed at transforming college sports.
This proposed law, known as the Protect College Sports Act, spans an impressive 111 pages.
Although a significant portion of this legislation addresses demands put forth by the Big Ten and SEC over their seven years of lobbying, the bill distinctly targets the two wealthiest conferences in a clearly perceptible manner.
This aspect has not escaped attention. A league official wryly remarked that the legislation “aims at” these two organizations in an unsettling fashion. When questioned about this later at the location, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey evaded a direct answer, instead reiterating the league’s stance in a declaration that echoed sentiments from other major conferences: We appreciate the efforts of legislators and intend to examine the proposal before deciding whether to endorse it publicly.
Individuals present, at least behind closed doors, are exhibiting a range of reactions from notable caution to outright doubt concerning the proposed law. The Senate’s draft legislation, notably, prohibits the SEC and Big Ten from increasing their present number of members, stops them from combining into the often-discussed “super league,” and incorporates an idea allowing conferences to consolidate their media rights. Even though this last point is merely an optional choice, the concept of pooling rights is a contentious issue, with leaders of the SEC and Big Ten so firmly opposed that they jointly published a document in February explaining why such an action would not alleviate the financial difficulties confronting the sector.
And now, this proposal has materialized, directly presented to them within the actual text of a legislative bill — a clear indication that policymakers are at least trying to narrow the rapidly growing financial disparity between these two conferences and all others.
They are also quite open about recognizing this fact.
During an interview earlier this week with Yahoo Sports, Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat representing Washington and a main proponent of the bill alongside Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, elaborated on the rationale underpinning these proposals.
“Evidently,” she stated, “our aim is to ensure no single entity monopolizes viewership or significant income, thereby undermining the broader system and leaving it financially disadvantaged.”
Will the SEC agree to exchange the fulfilled requests it sought — such as a single transfer allowance, a five-year eligibility rule, an agent registration system, and a firm revenue-sharing ceiling — for the provisions within the document that it finds objectionable?
The outcome is still uncertain. Although the timing of the bill’s announcement was inconvenient for officials present — occurring precisely as Sankey was in meetings with university presidents — it is not yet clear what effect the proposed law will have on the advanced discussions taking place here regarding a self-regulating, independent framework.
According to one representative, the legislation revitalized optimism for legislative intervention to resolve issues and supervise the sector — commonly referred to as “Plan A” by many here. However, another source believes the league’s presidents are rapidly moving towards establishing at least a preliminary structure for “Plan B”: an autonomous governance framework that would establish conference-wide regulations concerning eligibility, transfers, athlete remuneration, tampering, and similar matters, all while maintaining allegiance to the College Sports Commission.
Sports directors and university leaders are scheduled to reconvene on Thursday to conclude the three-day assembly.
Returning to the legislative proposal – a comprehensive 111-page document thoroughly covered in a Yahoo Sports article published Wednesday morning.
Does this bill truly have a prospect of becoming law? Obstacles are already surfacing. Certain individuals, such as Senator Chris Murphy (Democrat, Connecticut), contend that it excessively “safeguards” collegiate sports administrators and “restricts” the participants. Conversely, Republican Congressmen Brett Guthrie and Tim Walberg argue it is insufficient: The legislation, they assert, ought to prevent athletes from being classified as employees.
On Wednesday night, underscoring the challenges of advancing new laws, representatives from the National Urban League and various collegiate player organizations participated in a teleconference with Cantwell — many participants expressed criticisms of the proposed legislation and the antitrust immunity it grants to the NCAA. This discussion involved over 40 individuals and extended for more than sixty minutes.
Achieving this will present significant challenges.
For the bill to pass, it requires the backing of at least seven Democratic senators — assuming unanimous Republican support — to secure the necessary 60 votes. A vote in the House of Representatives might present an even greater hurdle, despite requiring only a simple majority for approval. The Republican majority in the House currently stands at merely three seats.
Concurrently, legal advisors for the SEC and Big Ten are expected to dedicate multiple days to meticulously examining the 111 pages to ascertain their favored and disfavored aspects within the proposed law.
The ideas specifically aimed at the SEC and Big Ten — such as preventing mergers, restricting expansion, and consolidating media rights — are indicative of a broader trend involving numerous outside influences that have recently surfaced within the realm of college athletics.
For example, during her discussion with Yahoo Sports, Cantwell mentioned receiving “considerable input and assistance” from two individuals heading the presidential committee for college sports: Randy Levine, president of the Yankees, and Cody Campbell, a Texas entrepreneur, both recognized as close associates of former President Donald Trump.
It is noteworthy that Campbell spearheaded a promotional effort last autumn which specifically scrutinized the SEC and Big Ten for their reluctance to combine media rights.
An additional influential party in the crafting of this legislation is Jack Swarbrick, the former athletic director for Notre Dame, who now works for Smash Sports. This private equity-supported initiative, whose agents have largely operated discreetly for the past three years, has been promoting a framework to redefine college football by — as you might predict — centralizing media rights.
“It is quite revealing in Washington to observe the origins of influential opinions,” Sankey commented on Wednesday. “I believe this proposed legislation reflects those influential perspectives.”
Whose opinions are these?
“You all are capable of discerning that,” he replied.
The consolidation of rights is a particularly contentious subject among the ten FBS conferences. A considerable number within the Group of Six leagues, including the Big 12 and ACC, are open to at least exploring this idea, with some of their university presidents having attended briefings by Smash executives.
Participants from the Big Ten and SEC — which collectively represent over 60% of the media worth in the collegiate sports sector — appear adamantly opposed to consolidating rights. This opposition is presumably rooted in a reluctance to share their financial prosperity, and based on their published white paper, they question whether pooling rights would genuinely offer a significant increase in overall worth.
As per the Senate’s proposed legislation, 75% of the 138 FBS institutions — equating to 103.5 athletic programs — would need to agree to activate the rights-pooling process (the remaining 25% are not compelled to participate). This implies that the SEC, Big Ten, and Notre Dame — totaling 35 institutions — effectively control whether consolidation occurs. Notre Dame can be considered, in a sense, the “deciding vote.” Pete Bevacqua, the athletic director for the Irish, has previously indicated his opposition to consolidating rights.
For the estimated media valuations to “function,” Cruz concedes, the SEC and Big Ten — being the largest revenue contributors — and indeed Notre Dame, would all need to take part. Based on a presentation by Smash Sports and remarks from Campbell, these valuations are projected to be more than triple the current earnings of college athletics. The remaining conferences would have to “negotiate” with the SEC and Big Ten to establish “a mutually appealing arrangement” to secure their involvement in rights pooling, Cruz informed Yahoo Sports.
Cantwell expressed her belief that Campbell and Levine will persist in collaborating with the FBS conferences to “collaborate and capitalize on the income potential” derived from pooling rights, she stated. The senator views this as an essential measure for addressing financial shortfalls and safeguarding women’s and Olympic sports, particularly as increased funds are directed towards football and men’s basketball programs in the present era of revenue distribution.
Will the SEC lend its endorsement to her proposed legislation?
Cantwell offered a slight laugh in response to the inquiry posed from the other end of the telephone call.
“They did not back the initial bill [regarding media rights consolidation],” she remarked. “I do not anticipate their support for this subsequent one.”
However, collegiate sports — encompassing the SEC — brought these circumstances upon themselves.
What are the consequences of soliciting assistance from the national government?
“Its direction is always unpredictable,” Sankey commented humorously.
