The tumultuous relationship between the Pac-12 Conference and the Mountain West Conference spawned an antitrust lawsuit in September, but in a recently filed motion to ignore, the MWC says the Pac-12’s case is “little more than a gripe” and asserts the Pac-12 has confused competitive government’s security of” contest” with the event trying to suppress companies.
The Pac-12 sued the MWC in a California federal district court for imposing termination fees—the Pac-12 prefers the “poaching penalties” moniker—on the handful of MWC schools ( Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State and Utah State ) that are joining the Pac-12 in 2026. The “penalty”, which the Pac-12 says is$ 55 million, “would significantly decrease the Pac-12’s sources to recruit more schools and repair”. Additionally, the exit fees would be appropriate in addition to the penalty.
The sentence stems from a planning deal signed by the Pac-12 and the MWC in 2023 following the Pac-12 losing 10 member institutions to another meetings, with just Oregon State and Washington State remaining. Oregon State and Washington State were guaranteed MWC teams by the deal, which included a$ 14 million payment to the MWC. Additionally, it stated that if the Pac-12 recruited MWC teams, penalties would be assessed, with amounts ranging from about$ 10 million to$ 138 million, depending on the number of schools that were poached. The Pac-12, which has only two members under its name, was largely kept in place while trying to figure out its potential. Additionally, it was intended to stop the Pac-12 from destroying the MWC.
As the Pac-12 tells it, the sentence is “duplicative” to the return payment and is an “unnecessary and wholly disciplinary” scheme intended to harm the Pac-12’s ability to attract new members. A less prosperous Pac-12 would also have a negative impact on opportunities for athletes and university employees, and its fans would find it less appealing.
In a brief authored by Eduardo E. Santacana and other attorneys from Willkie Farr &, Gallagher, the MWC argues the Pac-12’s case is without merit. MWC says the Pac-12 “has no antitrust standing”, since, as MWC tells it, the Pac-12 fails to allege harm to competition.
Antitrust law is designed to ensure competing businesses—which includes colleges and conferences—actually compete, in theory benefiting consumers with better products and services and lower prices. The MWC insists that the scheduling agreement promoted, rather than restrained, competition, because without it, the Pac-12 would have struggled to schedule games that provide opportunities to athletes and personnel. If there is an injury to competition, the MWC asserts the Pac-12 would comprise” an equally culpable co-conspirator”, as both the Pac-12 and the MWC are parties to their scheduling agreement.
The Pac-12, according to the MWC, also claimed that the scheduling agreement made it possible for them to adhere to the FBS requirement for conferences to have at least eight teams. As the MWC tells it, the agreement empowered the Pac-12 to ( 1 ) merge with the MWC, ( 2 ) offer membership to some but not all MWC schools, or ( 3 ) dissolve the Pac-12 altogether. The Pac-12″ chooses” the second option, but MWC claims that” now complains that the fees it unconditionally guarantee to pay the MWC for destroying the MWC’s integrity by cherry-picking select MWC schools violate the law.”
Another alleged flaw in the Pac-12’s complaint is that it lacks information on how consumers in the relevant market are affected. The Pac-12 complaint, according to the MWC, frequently mentions West Coast schools as being inconveniently mentioned in the Pac-12 complaint while also describing the schools as being untethered to geography.
The MWC also inquires as to why West Coast schools would offer a distinctive college football product that antitrust laws should protect. The MWC argues that the Pac-12 is trying to convert an agreement, and accompanying fee arrangement, the Pac-12 willingly signed into an antitrust case without proposing a defined market or alleging that the MWC is exerting power over a market.
To further challenge the Pac-12’s antitrust theory, the MWC notes that the scheduling agreement does n’t bar the Pac-12 from recruiting” the over 100 schools outside the MWC for potential Pac-12 membership”. This makes sense given that the scheduling agreement is only two conferences in scope and has a small impact on the market for big-time college football.
The Pac-12 will have the opportunity to counter the MWC’s arguments. On March 25, the parties are scheduled to discuss the motion to dismiss and have a meeting with U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen. Anytime, they could reach a settlement.