College football has been undergoing significant changes as programs have recently changed conferences—possibly presenting antitrust concerns, according to experts who spoke with The Epoch Times.
This year, Brigham Young University, the University of Central Florida, the University of Cincinnati and the University of Houston will leave the American Athletic Conference (AAC) for the Big 12, which currently includes 14 schools. Next year, the University of Arizona, Arizona State University, the University of Colorado and the University of Utah will join the Big 12 from the Pac-12.
The Southeastern Conference (SEC), one of the big-name college sports conferences, currently has 14 football programs. In 2024, the University of Oklahoma and the University of Texas will leave the Big 12 for that conference.
Starting next year, the University of Oregon, University of Southern California, University of Washington, and University of California Los Angeles will move from the Pac-12 to the Big Ten, which currently includes 14 schools.
Starting this year, the AAC will add six schools which left the lesser-known Conference USA (C-USA), to its eight-member conference: Florida Atlantic University, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Rice University, University of Texas at San Antonio and North Texas University.
C-USA, despite losing the aforementioned schools, will have nine teams this year and have 10 schools in 2024—the latter of which is a net loss of just one from 2022. In 2023, New Mexico State University (NMSU), Jacksonville State University (JSU), Sam Houston State University (SHSU) and Liberty University will join the conference.
NMSU and SHSU left the Western Athletic Conference. Liberty University was in the Big South Conference until 2018, when it became an independent school in the Football Bowl Subdivision. JSU left the ASUN Conference in the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) in 2023. In 2024, C-USA will add Kennesaw State.
In 2022, the 14-team Sun Belt added James Madison University, which previously was in the Coastal Athletic Association (CAA) and the FCS, and the University of Southern Mississippi, Old Dominion and Marshall, which previously were in the C-USA.
On the surface, the realignments do not violate antitrust law, according to antitrust lawyers. This is primarily because none of the 133 NCAA Division I football programs are shuttering or playing fewer games as a result of these changes. This still maintains a healthy number of conferences even as a handful of them, including the Big 10, keep expanding, and conferences like the Pac-12, which will have just four teams starting in 2024 if it survives in that form, continue shrinking.
“The potential antitrust law concern is if conference realignments reduce the number of schools with the financial resources to realistically compete for the Division I FBS national championship,” said Matt Mitten, the executive director of Marquette University Law School’s National Sports Law Institute.
“It’s not so much the number of conferences left after the latest round of conference musical chairs,” he continued. “It’s the total number of schools within this NCAA division that can viably” compete for a national football title.
Mark Levinstein, a partner at Williams & Connolly, said that the only thing that the conference realignments change is which schools play which.
“We’re not increasing or decreasing the number of teams,” he said, giving the viewpoint of the colleges and universities. “We’re probably not increasing or decreasing the number of games.”
Despite the realignments likely not violating antitrust law, there are secondary concerns that could present antitrust challenges. This includes broadcasting rights for networks including ESPN, ABC, CBS, and FS1.
But for now, the expansion in conferences does not present an antitrust issue of having fewer games and an increase in broadcasting prices, according to an antitrust lawyer who wished to remain anonymous. For example, the expanded Big Ten will present more games for TV viewers.
However, were the big-name conferences to shrink, one antitrust question that should be asked is whether that would cause networks such as ESPN to pay more for broadcasting rights, according to Mr. Levinstein. He remarked that the realignments are so that the schools, including Oregon, who join bigger conferences like the Big Ten will get more revenue thanks to the TV agreements. For example, schools that migrated to the Big Ten are doing so in return for agreements that they will receive more TV money than they would in the Pac-12.
Additionally, said Mr. Levinstein, were there to be further realignments that result in one conference, or a monopoly, then it would be an antitrust issue due to the lack of competition between conferences.
Whether the realignments will be investigated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is to be determined, but the experts said they do not expect that to be the case.
“You need to identify who’s going to be hurt by this in terms of such economic concerns as paying higher prices, having a lower-quality product,” said Mr. Levinstein. “So until you know what the effect of all of this is, it’s really hard to even know what a claim might look like.”
Mr. Mitten said that there is no significant antitrust issue with the realignments unless, for example, “the more economically powerful conferences like the Big Ten and the SEC do anything that effectively prevents the other conferences from getting media contracts, national sponsorships, or other sources of revenue.”
The antitrust lawyer, who wished to remain anonymous, noted that there had been a warning from critics that these realignments could eventually lead to a super-conference, which would consist of just one or two conferences—though that possibility is “a few years away” due to long-term agreements between conferences and their own teams. Were a super-conference or two to come about, that would present antitrust problems.
The FTC declined to comment, citing it does not state what investigations they are undertaking.
