The Big 12 Conference has initiated legal action against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas Tech University, seeking a federal court's confirmation to impose sanctions on Texas Tech for allowing quarterback Brendan Sorsby to play.
This lawsuit, filed on June 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, follows a state judge's recent decision that permitted Sorsby to participate with the Red Raiders this fall, despite his admission of betting on Indiana during his time on the team in 2022.
The case presents a significant conflict, pitting a 16-member conference against a prominent university and the state's leading legal authority, transforming a campus eligibility matter into a broader constitutional and antitrust confrontation. Central to the lawsuit is the Big 12's assertion of its right to sanction Sorsby.
The Big 12 is seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief rather than monetary damages. Essentially, the conference aims to secure a court ruling that would allow it to prohibit Sorsby from competing. The lawsuit names Paxton in his official role, along with Texas Tech officials including Chancellor Brandon Creighton, President Lawrence Schovanec, and Athletic Director Kirby Hocutt.
In building its case, the Big 12 relies on four main arguments. Firstly, it invokes the First Amendment, claiming that it functions as an “expressive association” that has consistently denounced sports betting by athletes. The conference argues that being forced to associate with or seemingly endorse Texas Tech's decision to play Sorsby would compel unwanted speech. Additionally, it contends that Paxton and Texas Tech have employed threats and coercive tactics to undermine the conference's ability to disassociate itself.
The Big 12 also raises an antitrust concern, asking the court to affirm that penalizing Texas Tech would not breach Section 1 of the Sherman Act, countering claims made by Paxton’s office. The conference cites various precedents to support its position.
Furthermore, the Big 12 asserts that its bylaws constitute an interstate contract among institutions across ten states, arguing that Texas is attempting to dismantle a nationwide disciplinary system to protect a local institution. The conference describes this as a clear case of “economic protectionism.”
The fourth aspect of the lawsuit specifically addresses Texas Tech, with the Big 12 requesting a court declaration that sanctions imposed under its bylaws would not violate any agreements with the university. According to Bylaw 3.6, a supermajority vote is required to sanction a member for actions deemed detrimental to the conference's interests.
Potential penalties mentioned in the filing could range from financial fines to exclusion from the Big 12 Championship Game.
Crucially, the conference maintains that it possesses authority independent of the NCAA, arguing that even if all NCAA eligibility regulations were eliminated, the Big 12 would still retain the power to determine whether a member's behavior aligns with its values.
This lawsuit comes in direct response to a letter from Paxton’s office dated June 11, which warned the Big 12 against invoking Bylaw 3.6. The letter claimed that any sanctions against Texas Tech would constitute an antitrust violation, framing it as a “naked horizontal agreement among competitors” aimed at disadvantaging the university.
Moreover, the letter cautioned the conference and its members about potential liabilities exceeding “substantially more than $200 million,” referencing treble damages, lost football revenues, alumni contributions, and recruitment impacts. It also threatened legal claims for breach of contract and “tortious interference” regarding any disruptions to Texas Tech's scheduled games or commercial agreements.