Attorney General Ken Paxton is urging Texas universities and other states’ top law officers to reject a proposed College Sports Commission agreement that he says is unlawful, overreaching, and a direct threat to schools’ finances and autonomy.
In letters sent to Texas schools in the ACC, Big 12, and SEC, as well as to attorneys general in states with Power Four and Big Ten members, Paxton warns that the University Participation Agreement would strip universities of key legal protections and punish them if their own state AGs challenge the College Sports Commission in court.
Paxton’s office says the participation agreement would give the CSC “practically limitless power” over member schools, going far beyond the enforcement role envisioned under the House v. NCAA settlement that created the commission.
The agreement would require universities to:
- Accept CSC’s authority to impose fines, penalties, and other sanctions with almost no meaningful right to appeal.
- Waive their right to challenge CSC enforcement decisions in court and instead submit disputes to an arbitration system built around the House settlement.
- Automatically comply with any additional policies the CSC adopts in the future, even if those rules are issued without prior notice.
Paxton calls the arrangement a “power grab” that undermines the integrity of college sports by centralizing enforcement authority in an unaccountable body while pushing legal and financial risk onto public universities.
One of Paxton’s central objections mirrors concerns raised by Texas Tech University’s general counsel in an internal memo.
The CSC agreement includes a “nonassistance” provision that would:
- Bar schools from cooperating with any lawsuit or legal action brought by their home state’s attorney general against the CSC.
- Trigger major penalties—such as loss of conference revenue and postseason eligibility—if a school “assists” its state AG in such litigation.
Texas Tech Vice Chancellor and General Counsel Eric Bentley previously warned that this effectively “penalizes the university” for lawful actions taken by the attorney general to protect citizens and state agencies, calling the clause “unacceptable” and likely in violation of Texas law.
Paxton’s new letter adopts the same theme, arguing that no private enforcement body should be able to punish a public university for complying with or supporting its own state’s legal decisions.
For Texas public institutions, Paxton notes, the agreement is not just bad policy—it may be illegal.
Among the issues his office and Texas Tech’s memo highlight:
- Texas law restricts state entities from entering binding arbitration, yet the CSC agreement would require public universities to funnel disputes into a private arbitration process and waive jury trial rights.
- Vague, open-ended fines and penalties could be treated as “unknown debt of the state,” which Bentley has warned would violate Texas law on state obligations.
- The document’s structure appears to bind universities to future CSC rules that may conflict with Texas statutes and constitutional provisions, creating ongoing legal exposure.
Because of these conflicts, Paxton’s letter argues that Texas universities may be legally unable to sign as written, even if they otherwise support the House settlement and revenue-sharing framework.
Texas Tech has been at the center of early resistance to the CSC agreement. In a November memo, Bentley identified at least 16 problem areas in the 10–11 page document, including:
- Minimal appeal rights for schools subject to CSC investigations and sanctions.
- Broad investigative powers and cooperation mandates that allow CSC to infer guilt if a school or employee is deemed insufficiently cooperative.
- Automatic application of any future CSC policies, regardless of whether schools had input or advance notice.
Texas Tech Board of Regents Chairman Cody Campbell has already said the university will not sign the agreement in its current form and has called for a “revised set of rules and regulations” that comply with Texas law and give schools a real voice in governance.
Paxton’s office is now effectively backing that position and trying to coordinate opposition beyond Texas.
In his separate letter to other state attorneys general, Paxton urged his counterparts to contact universities in their states and advise them not to sign the CSC participation agreement as drafted.
He frames the issue as both a legal and constitutional matter and a fundamental question of who should control college sports—states and public institutions, or a quasi-private body insulated from judicial review.
“To protect the integrity of collegiate athletics, this power grab by the CSC must be stopped,” Paxton says, pledging to “stand shoulder to shoulder with any school working to change this agreement.”
Campbell thanked Paxton for his support. “I am proud that @TexasTech was out front and showed leadership on this issue. Our team stood up for what is right, and displayed a lot of courage – that’s what Red Raiders do!!” he wrote on X. “We remain ready to work with the conference commissioners to craft an agreement that is reasonable and complies with the law.”
Texas A&M, the University of Houston, and the University of Texas at Austin were among the state universities Paxton addressed his letter to.
With the CSC pushing for signatures by December 3 following the House settlement, the showdown over whether universities accept or reject its sweeping new enforcement regime is now squarely in the hands of school regents and state-level officials.
A CSC spokesperson told Texas Scorecard, “The University Participant Agreement formalizes each school’s decision to participate in the new system established by the House settlement. Each of these institutions has already proactively chosen to participate in the new system – either by opting in to revenue sharing or agreeing to the House settlement. Signing the participant agreement is a logical next step in building a sustainable enforcement system and will allow the College Sports Commission to effectively deliver on what was agreed to in the settlement.”
