Watch What They Reach For

The week after Sorsby, the NCAA and the SEC each sent a letter ahead of Thursday’s markup. Both haul the bill toward the one version that can’t reach sixty.

Six days ago I argued that the Sorsby injunction changed the volume of the college sports fight and not its math, and well, Monday night handed me a very clean test, I’d say.

After a week of injunctions, dueling attorneys general, and a conference suing its own member, Brendan Sorsby, the quarterback at the center of all of it, walked away. He’s dropping his suit against the NCAA and entering the NFL supplemental draft, and the timing tells you it wasn’t really a choice between winning and losing. He had a June 22 deadline to enter that draft and no way to clear the legal underbrush before it, so he took the door that was open. The loudest story in college sports left on its own, and the count it was supposedly moving never budged.

New here, or missed it? Last week I built the targeting memo nobody asked for, a vote-by-vote map of where this bill actually lives or dies. It’s the spreadsheet underneath everything below, and the best place to start.

Let’s rewind the week he’s leaving behind. A Clemson receiver named Tristan Smith won his own injunction against the NCAA. State attorneys general planted flags on opposite sides of whether the Big 12 may punish Texas Tech: Texas’s Ken Paxton warned the conference off, threatening antitrust liability if it sanctioned the Red Raiders; Oklahoma’s Gentner Drummond shot back, demanding sanctions and calling Paxton’s stance “weak”; and Utah’s governor and attorney general piled on the same side, noting Sorsby’s wagers would be a crime under Utah law. Three states’ top legal officers, lobbing letters at a conference over a single quarterback’s eligibility. Then the Big 12 went further than any of them and sued its own member, a 47-page federal complaint against Texas Tech and the Texas attorney general asking a judge for permission to enforce its own bylaws. A league that wants to discipline one of its schools can’t just do it anymore; it has to go to court and ask.

The markup is still Thursday. The Big 12’s federal case against its own member is still live. The NCAA is still appealing its loss. Tristan Smith’s injunction still stands, with Khalil Poteat filing the same suit right behind him. Every piece of machinery that supposedly turned on one quarterback sits right where it was before he cleared out, which is the tell that it was never really about him.

His exit quietly proves a second thing, and it cuts against the people cheering loudest. The NCAA is selling this bill as the only instrument that can stop the next Sorsby, but nobody passed a law this week and Sorsby is gone regardless. Nobody even sanctioned him, strictly speaking. The conference never got that far; it’s still in court asking for the right to. What moved him was the pile-up of pressure and a closing NFL-draft window, an exit the whole apparatus neither controlled nor needed Congress to build. Baker keeps calling Sorsby the thunderbolt that proves Washington has to act, and the thunderbolt grounded itself with Washington nowhere in the room.

In the days before Sorsby left, the NCAA and the SEC each sat down and wrote a letter. Those are the part worth slowing down for, because everyone is reading this week the same way: surely this is the chaos that finally shoves a bill across the line. But watch what the powerful actually did with it. They didn’t go quiet and let the panic do their work for them. They reached for the provisions that shield them, and those are the provisions that drag the bill toward the version that can’t get to sixty.

This is where the last few weeks seem to pull a few themes together. Two weeks ago the argument here was that this bill can pass or it can matter, but very likely not both. Last week it was a map of where the sixty votes actually live, and why building the bill rightward never finds them. Sorsby was (to some) supposed to be the jolt that scrambled all of that. Instead, the week’s two letters walked the bill straight into the trap those pieces laid out.

The Senate Commerce Committee marks the bill up Thursday, June 18. Two memos landed in the days before it, and read together they tell you more about where this is going than any vote count could.

The first letter

The first is the NCAA’s. In a memo to Division I commissioners, it told its members that the Protect College Sports Act would not merely prevent the next Sorsby but, if it passes before his case resolves, would “override” the one already in progress. The hook is a clause called Section 123, and the NCAA wants members lobbying to strengthen it, warning that there’s an effort to strip it before markup. (Who’s trying to strip it, the memo doesn’t say, and no one has reported it. Treat that as the NCAA’s characterization, not a confirmed fact.)

So what does Section 123 actually do? Start with the boring part, because the boring part is the whole thing.

The bill hands the NCAA federal authority to set eligibility rules, including the authority to bar an athlete for gambling. Sorsby, who placed something like ninety thousand dollars in bets, is precisely the case that authority was written for. Section 123 is the clause that decides the timing. A new law normally governs what comes after it passes and leaves fights already underway alone. Section 123 says this one doesn’t. In the bill’s own words, it “shall apply with respect to any action or proceeding that is pending on or commenced on or after the enactment of this Act.” Translated: the new rules would reach not just the next Sorsby, but Sorsby himself, mid-case. That’s what the NCAA means when it tells members the bill would override the ruling, and it’s why the memo urges them to protect the clause. Sorsby just made that particular fight academic by walking away, and the NCAA still wants the clause regardless, because it was always aimed at the next case as much as this one.

That’s the memo’s version anyway. The bill does make sports wagering a ground for ineligibility, and Section 123 really would reach a case that’s already pending. But the bill is messier than the memo lets on, and you see it the second you look at what Sorsby actually won on. He didn’t beat the NCAA on whether it can bar a gambler. He won because the judge found, on contract and fiduciary grounds drawn from the NCAA’s own constitution, that the NCAA hadn’t followed its own procedures. What he won was a ruling about process, and about contract.

The knot is in the preemption clause, and the NCAA’s memo glides right past it. Section 121 wipes out conflicting state laws on eligibility, transfers, and NIL. But the same section turns around and preserves contract and tort law, and says nothing in it diminishes “the rights, privileges, or remedies of any individual under any Federal or State law, or under any labor contract.” Sorsby’s claim lives in that preserved category. Then the bill qualifies the whole thing in the very next breath: those preserved state remedies stand “except to the extent” they conflict with the federal rule. So one clause protects a contract remedy and reserves the power to override it, and Sorsby’s reinstatement sits right on the seam between them. The text doesn’t resolve it; it relocates the fight, from a county courthouse in Lubbock to a federal one over what “conflicts” means. That’s a long way from the clean kill switch the memo describes. Mit Winter put the bottom line flatly: the bill “won’t change that,” because governance of these disputes stays in state-court hands.

And even if Section 123 benches Sorsby, it doesn’t close the courthouse. The next athlete ruled ineligible walks in with the same contract-and-fair-process argument, which lands in the same preserved-but-qualified corner of the statute, because that argument never leaned on Sorsby to begin with. You could watch it happen this week. When Tristan Smith won his injunction, the lawyers who’d cheer the result went out of their way to insist his case didn’t ride on Sorsby’s. If Smith didn’t need Sorsby to win, erasing Sorsby doesn’t touch Smith. And the test stopped being hypothetical this week. Section 123 was written to take Sorsby off the board; Monday night he stepped off it himself, and the line of cases behind him didn’t shorten by one.

The second letter

The second letter is Greg Sankey’s, sent to SEC presidents and chancellors after a June 4 call with Cruz. It runs to roughly two dozen requested fixes, and two of them matter here. Sankey wants the athletes’ private right of action narrowed, citing “unintended legal exposure,” and he wants the media-pooling provision softened so a conference can’t be, in effect, sued into pooling. And he writes the line that should stop you cold: the bill’s provisions, as drafted, “are likely to increase litigation rather than reduce it.”

Note who’s saying that though. It’s the commissioner of the most powerful conference in the country telling his own bosses, in writing, that the rescue bill makes the courtroom problem worse. It’s the same thing the SEC said in public the week before, and the same thing I’ve been arguing here for months, now arriving from the one direction you’d least expect it.

Line the two letters up and they point the same way, two bodies each guarding what it holds, no coordination required. The NCAA wants the suing narrowed and the override strengthened. The SEC wants the suing narrowed and the pooling defanged. Strip away the conference rivalry and both are pulling the same rope: shrink the athlete’s right to sue, harden the preemption, protect our money. In last week’s targeting memo I called that direction building right, and the trouble with building right isn’t ideology, it’s arithmetic. Narrowing an athlete’s right to sue is the amendment most precisely engineered to confirm what the bill’s skeptics on the left already believe about it.

My read is that a bill built hard rightward tops out in the mid-fifties, right where last week’s spreadsheet put it: Republicans plus the two Democratic sponsors, and no sixth Democrat beyond them (assuming just a Paul defection; there may be more, we just don’t know yet) whose yes you buy by handing the NCAA more. A markup could try to thread it, narrowing the suing just enough to let the NCAA and SEC claim a win while keeping the pooling that holds Cantwell and the have-nots together. Maybe that needle exists. But every inch rightward spends goodwill on the half of the chamber where the votes actually have to come from, and sixty lives in the direction neither letter is pushing.

We got a first read Monday night. Cruz and Cantwell circulated a revised text, and The Athletic obtained the full version. The notable edits were in the plumbing: non-revenue-sports protection got unhooked from the TV-pooling deal (schools above $80 million in revenue must now hold their scholarship and roster levels no matter what happens with pooling), and institutional rev-share deals got freed from the clearinghouse. What didn’t change is the part this piece is about. The media-pooling section the SEC wanted gone survived untouched, the merger ban with it, and the athletes’ right to sue that both letters wanted narrowed wasn’t among the edits. The sponsors held the teeth, at least until Thursday, when the amendments go live and the full committee is in the room. And Monday’s text is probably not the last word: a chair usually walks into his own markup with a fresh manager’s amendment that folds in whatever deals got cut over the final weekend, so expect the bill to move at least once more before anyone votes on it.

The variable to watch

My thesis is that the direction that the bill is adapted from here is the thing that can possibly do the bill in, and that was the memo’s whole argument last week: a college sports bill passes on constituent pressure and dies on partisan framing. The one thing holding it on the non-partisan side of the ledger is Cantwell’s name. A sitting Democratic sponsor is a sturdier anchor than a week of attorneys general yelling at each other, and that anchor doesn’t snap over AG theater. What snaps it is the bill visibly becoming Trump’s win, and the heat this week is the kind that invites exactly that framing.

Count the burners. Attorneys general in three states trading letters over one quarterback. The House minority leader calling one of them corrupt. A boycott spreading from Georgia to Nebraska to a discussed Big Ten mandate. Two power centers lobbying in writing. A presidential endorsement still hovering over all of it. Meanwhile the eighteen Democrats whose home-state schools would actually carry this thing have, between them, still not said a public word in support. I called that silence information last week, and a week of this circus hasn’t changed it. Markup is the event most likely to break it, the moment senators have to stop hiding and put a vote on the record. That’s why I am thinking it holds, because that silence is pretty deafening.

There’s one more thing in the SEC’s posture worth marking, because it explains why the two richest conferences are the holdouts in the first place. Their deepest objection runs underneath both the suing and the pooling: the bill would make a breakaway “structurally illegal,” barring the SEC and Big Ten from absorbing other conferences into a super league. The bill forecloses their exit. The ACC and the Big 12, who don’t have that exit, have lined up behind it, which leaves the two giants isolated and quietly “discussing contingencies.” That’s not the language of a conference waiting on Congress. It’s the language of one preparing to govern itself if Congress moves against it, which is the breakaway story I walked through earlier this spring, now showing up as a footnote in a markup memo.

What to watch on the eighteenth

The committee very very likely reports the bill out regardless: fifteen Republicans, thirteen Democrats, the chairman’s own text. The vote is a formality; the amendments are where the information is.

The fight the cameras will cover is the sympathetic one, protecting women’s and Olympic sports. It’ll pass easily and tell you little about the count, because that side already banked its real win in Monday’s revision, when its funding got cut loose from the pooling deal it used to hang on. The amendment is the victory lap, not the contest. The fight that matters is quieter: whether the committee hardens Section 123 and narrows the right to sue, walking the bill rightward toward the mid-fifties, or protects them and keeps the door to sixty cracked. Watch the handful of target Democrats who happen to sit on Commerce, Markey and Rosen and Luján and Hickenlooper, and watch whether any of them lays a finger on 123. Luján has already signaled he wants to touch in-season coaching movement; what he and the others do with the suing provision is the early read on whether the caucus is free or whipped. And keep half an eye on the Congressional Black Caucus, whose pause request Cruz and Cantwell are still trying to talk down rather than steamroll. The revision even added two HBCU seats to the bill’s new 22-member commission, a small nod to one of the Caucus’s stated concerns. That kind of courtship is its own quiet signal about how tight the authors know the count is. But that is also just how the Senate works compared to the House.

So did the week change anything?

It changes the volume again, and now it’s changed the direction the powerful are pushing. It still hasn’t changed the math very much. Section 123 was built to bench a plaintiff, and the plaintiff just benched himself while the docket behind him didn’t blink. The two letters can drag the bill rightward, and my read is there’s no sixty down that road. Faced with a sport that keeps losing in court, the NCAA grabbed a clause to reach back past the judges, the SEC grabbed one to protect its media money, and the Big 12, told it couldn’t discipline a member without a fight, asked a federal judge to declare it had a First Amendment right to punish its own school. All of it reached straight past the only version of this bill that actually passes.

That’s the thing this series keeps circling. Nobody in this story is dumb and nobody is a cartoon villain. Each of them is reaching for the instrument that guards what they already hold, exactly as you’d predict, and the instrument that guards what you hold is almost never the one that builds a coalition.

Incentives, all the way down, two days before a markup. We’ll know more once the committee meets—you will learn a lot in this teachable moment to come about politics, methinks.

---

New to Sacred Cow BBQ? I run the week’s college sports news through a political-economy lens. Subscribe and the next one lands in your inbox.

If you liked these pieces, share them with the folks in your world who love college athletics.

Think the chaos forces it through after all, or that Section 123 really does shut the courthouse? The comments are open, and I’ll grade myself against the markup either way.

Catch up on the series: The Sorsby Ruling Proves the Point, Be Careful What You Lobby For, Let’s Go Through the Politics of the Protect College Sports Act, The Borrowed Authority of College Athletics, and the flagship, How Collective Bargaining Could Stabilize College Football.

NB: Written in my capacity as a political scientist who studies institutions, incentives, and collective action, not as an institutional spokesperson.

If you’re inclined to support to the work, a paid subscription through substack or an easy two click buy me a coffee link below does the trick!