Bill Farley has been following the money in the realignment saga by attaining and analyzing the contract agreements between the PAC 12 leavers and the BIG 12 and BIG 10. He finds that the BIG 12 threatened to sue ESPN for tampering for some of the things it may have done when Texas and Oklahoma left two years ago. Because of that Texas and Oklahoma specified in their "divorce agreements" with the BIG 12 that those things didn't happen.
In other words they guaranteed that ESPN and the SEC didn't contact them or give them incentives to leave.
But it looks the agreements signed between some of the PAC 12 leavers and their new conferences don't include those "anti-tampering" claims or dilute them. Why would that be...hmmm?
At least I think that's what he's saying - I'm no media rights expert or lawyer.
billfarley.substack.com
I received the University of Cincinnati's membership agreement with the Big 12, bringing my collection to nine. In this article I compare all nine, identifying three elements that may be grounds for litigation by the Pac 12 against the Big 12. I make the assumption that the Pac-12 and ESPN have a similar obligation to each other, that the Big 12 and ESPN had when Texas and Oklahoma split. Unfortunately, I can't validate this assumption because contracts between conferences and ESPN are confidential and beyond the reach of public records requests.
In summary, the Big 12 provided the public with a glimpse into the content of secretive telecast contracts when they threatened ESPN with litigation over tampering with their members. New member agreements disclosed by universities since that time indicate how tampering could take place: 1) waivers of application fees, 2) financial assistance from media companies to help universities transition to new conferences, and 3) conferences making unsolicited offers to universities to defect from their current homes. Unsolicited contact seems to be the practice that is most likely to be litigated since this is the practice the Big 12 asked joining members to refute. Since Utah and ASU could not refute that the Big 12 initiated contact, this may be the first place that Scott Barnes throws a counterpunch.
In other words they guaranteed that ESPN and the SEC didn't contact them or give them incentives to leave.
But it looks the agreements signed between some of the PAC 12 leavers and their new conferences don't include those "anti-tampering" claims or dilute them. Why would that be...hmmm?
At least I think that's what he's saying - I'm no media rights expert or lawyer.
ESPN/Big 12 and Pac 12 Tampering
Potential grounds for litigation and a blueprint to blow up the ACC
billfarley.substack.com
I received the University of Cincinnati's membership agreement with the Big 12, bringing my collection to nine. In this article I compare all nine, identifying three elements that may be grounds for litigation by the Pac 12 against the Big 12. I make the assumption that the Pac-12 and ESPN have a similar obligation to each other, that the Big 12 and ESPN had when Texas and Oklahoma split. Unfortunately, I can't validate this assumption because contracts between conferences and ESPN are confidential and beyond the reach of public records requests.
In summary, the Big 12 provided the public with a glimpse into the content of secretive telecast contracts when they threatened ESPN with litigation over tampering with their members. New member agreements disclosed by universities since that time indicate how tampering could take place: 1) waivers of application fees, 2) financial assistance from media companies to help universities transition to new conferences, and 3) conferences making unsolicited offers to universities to defect from their current homes. Unsolicited contact seems to be the practice that is most likely to be litigated since this is the practice the Big 12 asked joining members to refute. Since Utah and ASU could not refute that the Big 12 initiated contact, this may be the first place that Scott Barnes throws a counterpunch.
Last edited:
