Key Points
- Federal lawsuit filed by Big 12 Conference against Texas Tech University and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on June 14
- Legal battle revolves around quarterback Brendan Sorsby, who confessed to making more than 2,900 wagers exceeding $30,000
- Big 12 seeks judicial confirmation that it maintains authority to sanction Texas Tech without violating antitrust regulations
- AG Paxton issued warning that penalties against Texas Tech could result in over $200 million in damages
- Oklahoma’s Attorney General backed the conference, describing Paxton’s stance as “facially absurd”
The confession of quarterback Brendan Sorsby to wagering on his own team has escalated into a federal court battle positioning a prominent collegiate athletic conference against a state’s top legal officer.
On June 14, the Big 12 Conference initiated legal proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, designating both Texas Tech University and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton as respondents.
The athletic conference is petitioning a federal judge to validate its power to impose sanctions on Texas Tech for allowing Sorsby to compete during the upcoming fall season.
Background on Brendan Sorsby
Sorsby acknowledged making a minimum of 2,900 separate wagers that exceeded $30,000 across a four-year period. Among these bets, 40 were executed in 2022 during his time as a non-playing member of the Indiana Hoosiers.
He subsequently moved to Texas Tech under a name, image and likeness agreement valued at no less than $5 million.
Following the NCAA’s denial of his reinstatement request, Sorsby initiated legal action. A Lubbock state court judge granted a temporary restraining order preventing the NCAA from imposing a permanent prohibition, allowing his participation this fall.
While the NCAA requested expedited appellate review, the court scheduled the trial for two weeks following the College Football Playoff Championship. This scheduling created a situation where the Big 12 decided it could not afford to wait.
The Conference’s Legal Position
The conference is not pursuing monetary compensation. Its objective is declaratory and injunctive relief — fundamentally a judicial determination affirming its authority to proceed.
The Big 12 presents its case through four distinct legal arguments. Initially, it contends it functions as an expressive association protected by the First Amendment, asserting that being compelled to allow Sorsby’s involvement would constitute forced speech contrary to its principles.
Secondly, it maintains that imposing sanctions on Texas Tech would not constitute an antitrust law violation, directly contradicting Paxton’s assertions.
Thirdly, the conference characterizes its bylaws as forming an interstate agreement spanning ten states. It asserts that Texas is attempting to dismantle this structure to benefit a local institution, representing economic protectionism.
Finally, it requests judicial confirmation that implementing its bylaws would not constitute a contractual breach with Texas Tech. Bylaw 3.6 permits a supermajority of member institutions to penalize a member for actions contradicting conference principles.
Potential sanctions range from monetary fines to exclusion from the Big 12 Championship Game.
Attorney General’s Response
On June 11, Paxton’s office transmitted correspondence to Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark, cautioning the conference against activating Bylaw 3.6.
The correspondence contended that any disciplinary action would constitute a “naked horizontal agreement among competitors” and notified the conference of possible liability surpassing $200 million, incorporating treble damages and recruitment-related harm.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond issued a response on June 12, aligning with the Big 12. He characterized the notion that a conference lacks authority to discipline member institutions under a mutually agreed contract as “facially absurd.”
The Big 12 further emphasized it possesses disciplinary authority separate from the NCAA. The conference maintains that even in a scenario where all NCAA eligibility regulations ceased to exist, it would retain the ability to enforce its own standards.
Member institutions are advocating for an immediate sanctions vote, making this federal filing the conference’s strategy to eliminate legal obstacles before the season commences.
Get 3 Free Stock Ebooks
Discover top-performing stocks in AI, Crypto, and Technology with expert analysis.
- Top 10 AI Stocks - Leading AI companies
- Top 10 Crypto Stocks - Blockchain leaders
- Top 10 Tech Stocks - Tech giants
