Outlining concerns, SEC's Sankey worries Senate bill could produce more lawsuits, not fewer

Among the concerns Sankey expressed was about the “unintended legal exposure” that could come in a section of the bill that allows athletes to file civil lawsuits in certain cases — a right that many Democrats have sought to protect.

“As drafted, these provisions are likely to increase litigation rather than reduce it,” Sankey wrote.

Though the SEC and Big Ten have not backed the Protect College Sports Act as currently written, they did believe that with targeted revisions it could deliver “meaningful stability and accountability needed in college athletics," Sankey wrote.

Cruz and co-sponsor Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., have portrayed their bipartisan bill, which would need 60 votes to clear the Senate, as the last, best chance to make lasting fixes to college sports. They have indicated they are open to adjustments in the 111-page measure, which they rolled out May 27.

Sankey's letter to the 16 leaders of schools that make up the SEC ticked off two dozen bullet points about parts of the bill the leagues agreed need changes.

Many of those issues revolved around two key components the leagues and NCAA have been fighting for in previous bills: limited protection against lawsuits and preemption of state laws.

Sankey wrote that broadening the preemption clause to include not only NIL, transfer and eligibility issues, but to also apply to recruiting inducements, tampering and non-NIL compensation, could help fix that section.

He also called on the bill to more clearly protect schools and conferences from litigation if they are complying with the law if it passes.

“The House settlement framework may not be perfect, but the settlement and the bill must work together — not against each other,” Sankey wrote, referencing the landmark lawsuit settlement that set rules for players to be paid in college sports, much of which this bill proposes to write into law.

The letter also addressed the much-debated proposal to rewrite the Sports Broadcasting Act and give conferences an option to pool their media rights. It's a move the SEC and Big Ten have objected to, unconvinced it would generate increased revenue that its supporters claim is possible.

“If the intent is for the current SBA provisions to be fully voluntary, additional language is needed to ensure this voluntary decision-making process is protected and not circumvented through creative legal strategies,” Sankey wrote.

A scenario he described in the letter made it sound possible that other conferences could pool their postseason media rights (outside of March Madness) and essentially squeeze the SEC and Big Ten out of a new football postseason that could replace the College Football Playoff.

In another section that sounded supportive of the new College Sports Commission, which evaluates NIL under the current system, Sankey wrote that the bill needs language requiring the deals to be disclosed to a national entity, like the CSC, in addition to disclosing it to administrators at their own campus.

“Disclosure to a national governing entity is critical to enable independent enforcement and align with the reporting requirements in the House settlement,” Sankey wrote.

AP college football: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-football-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-football