Can Congress stop SEC, Big Ten expansion? What we know about a proposed bill and realignment

Can Congress really slow — or stop — the chaos of conference realignment?

The answer comes down to the meaning and interpretation of a section in an 111-page bipartisan bill announced in the Senate last week, designed to prevent the Big Ten and SEC breaking away from everyone else. In practice, it could also limit, if not eliminate, Power 2 expansion … with some notable exceptions (including one in South Bend). 

Before we go deeper, let’s pause for some standard caveats. A bill’s language can change as it goes through the legislative process, so this provision of the Protect College Sports Act could evolve or be cut. Just because it has support from Democrats (Washington’s Maria Cantwell and Delaware’s Chris Coons) and Republicans (Texas’ Ted Cruz and Missouri’s Eric Schmitt) does not guarantee it will pass the Senate. Even if it does, it must still pass through the House of Representatives and be signed into law by the president. 

But the potential effects on conference realignment are potentially enormous and worth exploring ahead of the next step (Wednesday’s committee hearing). After a dozen conversations with lawmakers, aides, attorneys and industry observers, here’s what we know and don’t know:

Can Congress legally pause Big Ten/SEC expansion?

Yes, said antitrust and higher education attorney David Gringer.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Gringer, a partner at the law firm WilmerHale, said the business of college sports and conferences falls under the interstate commerce umbrella, just like antitrust laws and exemptions in other industries.

“It’s not nakedly outside of Congress’ power in my view,” Gringer said.

What does this new bill say?

It prohibits the Big Ten and SEC from doing two things:1. They can’t “merge or consolidate with” another conference.

2. They can’t “acquire the assets, media rights (including media rights of an institution), or membership of, another conference …”

Does this mean the Big Ten and SEC wouldn’t be allowed to expand more?

Probably, according to most of the people we spoke with. 

We’ll use Clemson as an example. Clemson gave its media rights to the ACC by signing a contract called a grant of rights. That document lets the ACC sell those rights to ESPN, and the rights fees trickle back from the conference to the Tigers. 

If the “media rights of an institution” (Clemson) belong to “another conference” (the ACC), the Big Ten/SEC can’t acquire them. And because a school’s realignment value is tethered to its media rights, this interpretation of the bill effectively freezes SEC/Big Ten expansion — for now. 

This part of the bill only targets conferences that reported at least $1 billion in revenue on their 2025 tax returns — the Big Ten and SEC. It wouldn’t stop the ACC from adding members (including, theoretically, someone from the Big Ten or SEC). 

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, for what it’s worth, said he’s proud of his league’s 16-school membership and footprint and that he’d love for “everybody to stay where they are.” 

“If someone chooses to write legislation that focuses just on us because we’ve done things so well, I look forward to learning that explanation,” Sankey said at last week’s spring meetings. 

Would conference realignment be over for the Big Ten and SEC?

Probably not.

In our Clemson example, the Tigers’ media rights belong to the ACC until 2036 at the latest. But when that deal expires, the rights no longer belong to a conference; they belong to Clemson again. In that case, the media rights (and the program) can be acquired by the Big Ten or SEC through conference expansion. 

It’s worth remembering that most realignment moves happen as TV contracts near their end, anyway. The Big Ten poached Oregon and Washington, for instance, as the Pac-12’s media rights deal was expiring. 

If this reading of the bill is correct, the timeline for the next wave of realignment hasn’t changed much. The Big 12’s contracts expire in 2031. That’s about when the exit fee for an ACC school to leave and reacquire its media rights drops to its lowest level ($75 million).

What about Notre Dame?

Because Notre Dame football is not in a conference, this provision doesn’t apply to the Irish. That likely leaves the Irish (and the only other independent team, UConn) on the table for Big Ten/SEC expansion.

Whether Notre Dame is interested and able to untangle itself from the ACC are different matters. 

What would this mean for Clemson, Florida State and other potential expansion targets?

One of the bill’s co-sponsors highlighted a different part of the bill that could resonate with, say, North Carolina and Miami. 

“The sort of realignment that you’ve seen or adding teams is kind of a symptom of the problem,” Schmitt said. 

The actual problem is a growing need for money now that schools are paying players directly. The bill addresses that issue by trying to expand media rights revenue. If 75 percent of the Football Bowl Subdivision opts in, conferences can voluntarily pool their media rights together and sell them as a bundle, similar to how professional leagues operate under the Sports Broadcasting Act. 

If that idea works the way the bill’s authors intend, the change in supply will allow leagues to charge more for media rights, increasing revenue for every participating conference and school. And if every conference and school makes more money, perhaps the Clemsons and Miamis don’t need to join the Big Ten or SEC to be nationally competitive. 

Unless the bill is amended or interpreted more broadly — both are possible — your favorite school outside the Power 2 still has a chance to earn a call-up at some point. Texas and Oklahoma were able to get out of their Big 12 obligations a year early to join the SEC, reminding us that timing can be negotiable.

Would this kill the idea of a super league?

At minimum, the easiest path to a super league disappears. Although industry attorneys we consulted said the bill’s language was ambiguous about adding a team, they viewed the prohibition of a Big Ten/SEC merger as straightforward. 

But what if the Big Ten and SEC did something else, like disbanding both conferences entirely to form a new entity funded by private equity investors?

Industry consultant Lindsay Conner said the bill would allow for it, but the idea is plagued by the practical complications of unwinding contracts for everything from media rights to sponsorships to tournament sites. 

“It wouldn’t violate this law to dissolve,” said Conner, who has advised schools on conference realignment, “but they can’t just dissolve.” 

Even if the Big Ten and SEC wanted to dissolve and found a way to do so, existing antitrust laws still apply. A legal challenge could argue the new super league has enough market power to be anticompetitive to the industry as a whole, said Rick Chryst, a former MAC commissioner who’s now a principal at the Pivotal Sports & Entertainment advisory firm. 

One other loophole is unlikely but worth mentioning. The bill allows for mergers if a conference includes 75 percent of the FBS, or 104 of this season’s 138 members. That scenario would protect the next Washington State from losing its power conference status — notable because the Cougars are among Cantwell’s constituents — but why would the Big Ten and SEC want to add most of the Group of 6?

What’s next?

Tweaks are likely and common as the bill progresses. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has a hearing scheduled for Wednesday morning. 

The bill must pass through the Senate, the House and be signed by the president to become law. A broadly similar bill, the SCORE Act, never even made it to a full vote in the House.

Realistically, the legislation must progress quickly this summer before lawmakers turn more attention to the November elections (which could reshape the balance of power in Washington). 

— Ralph D. Russo, Justin Williams, Seth Emerson and Chris Vannini contributed to this story.