Legal Battle in Federal Court
The Big 12 Conference has initiated a lawsuit against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas Tech University to affirm its right to discipline the school for playing quarterback Brendan Sorsby. This federal court complaint, filed shortly after a state judge’s decision cleared Sorsby to play, seeks to validate the conference’s authority to manage its members under antitrust laws.
Big 12’s Legal Arguments
In their legal filing, the Big 12 seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, aiming to prevent Sorsby from competing. The conference argues it functions as an “expressive association,” which has consistently opposed athlete gambling. They claim forced association with Texas Tech’s decision violates their free speech rights. Additionally, they challenge any claims of antitrust violations.
Bylaw and Antitrust Concerns
The conference emphasizes its bylaws, claiming they form an interstate, legally binding contract, which Texas cannot override. By applying these bylaws, the Big 12 argues it maintains a unified disciplinary framework across multiple states, countering allegations of economic protectionism.
Paxton’s Warning and Legal Threats
Paxton’s office had earlier cautioned against imposing sanctions, labeling such actions as antitrust violations and warning of potential liabilities exceeding $200 million. This threat included possible claims for breach of contract and disruption to Texas Tech’s engagements.
Sorsby’s Gambling History
The controversy centers around Sorsby’s admitted history of placing numerous bets, including during his tenure with the Hoosiers. Despite a temporary injunction from a state judge protecting Sorsby from a permanent NCAA ban, the Big 12 seeks a resolution ahead of the season, driven by internal member pressure. Betting trends are a crucial factor in the league’s considerations.
