Texas attorney general Ken Paxton urging state schools not to sign CSC’s participation agreement

A letter from the Texas state attorney general threatens to derail college sports’ new enforcement entity before it has really even got going.

In a three-page letter sent to the seven power conference universities in Texas, Ken Paxton implores the schools not to sign the College Sports Commission’s participation agreement — a document that binds the 68 power league programs together under new enforcement rules, most notably requiring them to waive their right to sue over infractions decisions.

The agreement, only enforceable if all members of the Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC sign, intends to provide protection so the College Sports Commission can enforce new policies and penalties related to the athlete revenue-sharing concept implemented this year through the NCAA’s settlement of three antitrust cases, often referred to as House.

In the letter, Paxton expresses that he is “gravely concerned” about the implications of the agreement and “urges” Texas universities to decline signing. He identifies several reasons that schools should not sign the document, including the requirement to waive legal action, the CSC’s over-extension of authority to penalize programs without a legitimate option for appeal and the concept of schools acquiescing to “unnamed policies.”

Perhaps most notably, Paxton targets the agreement’s notion of arbitration. The agreement provides schools an avenue of arbitration in exchange for not filing legal challenges against the College Sports Commission. However, Paxton writes in his letter, Texas public universities are prohibited by state law from agreeing to arbitration.

“CSC clearly seeks to coerce compliance with its rules and limit a (school’s) means of redress if dissatisfaction arises for any reason,” he writes in a letter that was expected to be distributed to other state attorneys general as well.

The letter follows pushback on the participation agreement from the Texas Tech general counsel, who, in a letter distributed across the Big 12 over the weekend, implored changes to the agreement and recommended the Tech board reject the document. Several other universities — especially private schools — have privately expressed intentions not to sign the agreement without modifications.

The CSC’s agreement was distributed to schools last week and universities were expected to have about two weeks to sign. The pushback now puts in jeopardy the future of college sports’ new enforcement entity and could keep open the door for schools to circumvent the new quasi-salary cap in college athletics.

Without legal protection — or a congressional bill — lawsuits threaten to erode the CSC’s new policies in a similar way to the crumbling of NCAA rules and regulations.

Congress is on a path to potentially help college sports. As soon as next week, congressional lawmakers in the House of Representatives are expected to vote on the SCORE Act, the college sports legislation that grants the NCAA and conference wishes of legal protections to enforce their rules. However, the SCORE Act, though expected to pass the House, will be met with resistance in a U.S. Senate where at least seven Democrats are needed for adoption of the bill.

The CSC, the new enforcement arm created by the power leagues and led by former Major League Baseball executive Brian Seeley, is charged with policing the new cap by prohibiting phony booster-backed, third-party compensation to athletes. The participation agreement provides a level of legal protection for the CSC to levy stiff sanctions for those violating the cap through circumvention tacts, including traditional booster collective pay, and the intentional redirecting of corporate sponsor and apparel monies to rosters.

The agreement, which runs parallel with the House settlement’s 10-year existence, is expected to grant the CSC the ability to begin direct enforcement efforts of these new rules by using a list of agreed-upon penalties that are not yet finalized: a limited postseason ban, financial fines on coaches, administrators and the school itself, withholding of conference and NCAA revenue distribution, the loss of postseason revenues and, perhaps most notably, reductions in the amount of transfers a school can add, as well as reductions in allowable roster spots and scholarships.

Letter to Texas Universities by jayhart1973