College football super leagues? Pitch details, projected revenues — and roadblocks

Over the past two weeks, two proposals to reshape college football have become public.

Some aspects have support from administrators worried about the future, and many fans are intrigued, while the commissioners of the SEC and Big Ten have unceremoniously dismissed them. But what are the proposals really about? Why now? Why does anything need to change?

Earlier this month, a group called College Sports Tomorrow released an 18-page pitch called the “College Student Football League,” a reorganization of the 136-team and 10-conference Football Bowl Subdivision into a single league, which The Athletic first reported in April.

Meanwhile, venture capital firm Smash Capital has privately pitched to schools “Project Rudy,” an injection of billions of dollars into the schools that make up the Power 4 to create a single business that largely maintains the existing structure of college football. The proposal was first reported by Yahoo Sports. The Athletic obtained a copy of the 14-page pitch deck that Smash Capital has shared with more than 30 power-conference schools and spoke with industry power brokers briefed on the Project Rudy pitch. Smash Capital declined to comment.

Both ideas would pull college football out of the NCAA, which is undergoing rapid change due to antitrust and other lawsuits, and aim to generate much higher revenues than what schools are receiving today. Project Rudy refers to a “for-profit league.” While neither refers to itself as a “super league,” and both would likely bristle at that designation, the term has become a shorthand for the projects.

So what are these proposals all about — and will any of it actually happen? Here are answers to your questions.

Why are there multiple college football super league proposals being pushed?

The further consolidation of the top football programs in the 18-school Big Ten and 16-school SEC amid conference realignment and a widening gap in media rights revenues has created concern across the sport. Whether it’s a future breakaway focused on just those teams, or the two conferences strong-arming the rest of college sports, other schools and outside observers are worried about what it could mean. Last week, Big Ten and SEC athletic directors met in Nashville to discuss that future, as well as a potential scheduling agreement and the newly expanded College Football Playoff, over which they have the most control.

“If FBS football isn’t rationalized soon, the SEC & (Big Ten) could try to form their own ‘Super League’ with 36 hand-picked schools, killing off college sports at 100 schools and irreparably damaging higher education,” the CSFL stated in one presentation slide.

Conference realignment has also coincided with major budgetary changes to college sports, such as name, image and likeness and future revenue sharing from the proposed House v. NCAA settlement that would result in schools paying players north of $20 million as soon as July 2025 with final approval. It’s caused many athletic departments to worry both about their finances and future standing in college football.

As a result, multiple outside groups are attempting to find a singular solution that features additional matchups between power-conference teams while bringing college football — and future media rights agreements — under one umbrella. Private equity and private capital groups have been circling college sports for years, looking to jump in as they have with professional sports. But because college sports is a fractured web of conferences, creating a singular league with everyone (or almost everyone) would be much simpler and more lucrative from a financial and operational perspective. The CSFL proposal noted that doing 10 different collective bargaining agreements for 10 different FBS conferences is untenable.

Put simply: It would be easier for everyone — and would bring in more money — if college football turned into one giant, professionally organized league.

Who is behind these proposals?

College Sports Tomorrow is made up of business executives led by Len Perna, the CEO of TurnkeyZRG search firm. It also counts North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham, Tennessee AD Danny White, Texas Tech AD Kirby Hocutt and presidents at West Virginia and Syracuse among its “ambassadors.”

Smash Capital’s Project Rudy is led by former Disney executives Evan Richter, Kevin Mayer and Tom Staggs.

Is private equity involved in these ideas?

Yes and no. The CSFL calls for “minimal” use of outside capital as bridge financing, but it’s mostly just a reorganization of the sport and its leadership. The schools would own the league, with no outside ownership, including from CST.

“We don’t believe there should be any outside interest owning any part of this,” Perna said in an interview with The Athletic. “We want the schools to own 100 percent of all future revenues, all the equity.”

Project Rudy, on the other hand, calls for an investment of at least $5.3 billion and up to $9 billion from Smash Capital and investors, and it projects gains of at least $15 billion over 12 years. The investment would provide media rights and sponsorship guarantees at a higher rate than current revenues, while investors would make money back in the future, according to the proposal.

“College football is one of the largest sports in the US but is leaving millions of viewers and consequently billions of dollars on the table,” the Project Rudy proposal says, “presenting an outsized opportunity to advance the sport and business without compromising tradition.”

What are the biggest hurdles?

The first is getting buy-in from the Big Ten and SEC, which would need to be convinced or incentivized to change a system that greatly benefits them.

“The notion that college football is broken is just not right,” Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti said. “You see the interest, the size of the audience, the passion, the quality of play, all of it. Are there things that we can do better? Of course, but that’s our responsibility to do that.”

The second hurdle is the fact that every Power 4 conference and the College Football Playoff have TV deals that run into the early 2030s and scheduled games many years into the future. Both the CSFL and Project Rudy propose maintaining the current media deals as part of a transition period, but that would undoubtedly be a difficult dynamic to navigate.

The third hurdle is Congress. These proposals address or involve topics such as pooling TV rights into a single entity, collective bargaining and athlete employment status, setting NIL and transfer regulations, and potentially locking out the Group of 5. Enacting most if not all of those ideas would require a Congressional antitrust exemption like the one professional sports leagues have. Given the wide range of constituencies involved and how much trouble college sports has had with Congress, securing those exemptions could be a very tall task.

How many teams are in the super league proposals?

The CSFL proposal would include all 136 FBS teams (including future members Delaware and Missouri State) spread across 20 geographically arranged divisions and separated into two distinct conferences. The top 12 divisions would comprise mostly the current Power 4 schools while the remaining eight divisions would include mostly the Group of 5.

The Project Rudy idea includes roughly 70 teams across the existing Power 4 conferences, though a possible additional tier of Group of 5 programs is listed as an option in the pitch.

Is there promotion and relegation?

The CSFL proposal would include a “promotion” of the top Group of 8 teams to play Power 12 teams the next year, but Power 12 schools would face no risk of being relegated to the Group of 8.

Project Rudy briefly presents a range of options, including one that has every school eligible for promotion/relegation within a tiered model, and another that protects a top tier from any relegation, without giving specifics. Neither proposes a scenario in which current power-conference programs could be relegated and dropped out of the super league models.

The idea of promotion and relegation is popular in international soccer and fun for fans in other sports to imagine, but the reality is the most valuable stakeholders don’t want to sign up for any system in which they risk making much less revenue. The term “super league” comes from the soccer proposal that would have created a separate postseason that guaranteed spots for the biggest clubs. They created it to eliminate risk. That’s why most of these pro/rel ideas already bake in a tier of schools that can’t be relegated.

 

(Courtesy of CSFL)

What would the schedules look like?

Both ideas feature games almost exclusively between schools in what is now the Power 4, though the promoted group within the CSFL would have some top teams from the current Group of 5 at that level. Since Project Rudy includes only the Power 4, the regular-season schedule would have only power-conference matchups.

Both concepts are based on the idea that more matchups between top-tier teams will bring in far more television money than the current setup.

“By adjusting the mix of regular season games and adding playoffs, there is likely to be over 50% viewership growth,” the Project Rudy pitch proclaims. “This substantial growth can be achieved even without adding regular season games, which could also be considered.”

Each model would maintain long-standing rivalries.

How would TV work?

Both ideas involve a singular, centralized TV deal, just like a pro sports league. Industry sources have long pointed out that, in the current setup, broadcasters have the leverage because conferences compete against each other for their dollars. But in pro sports, there is only one NFL or one NBA, keeping leverage with the league and compelling broadcasters to compete for their rights.

In order to pool media rights together, either super league would need an antitrust exemption from Congress, which the pro sports leagues have. The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which protects Saturdays for college football by banning the NFL from it for most of fall, was passed by Congress to allow the NFL to pool its teams’ rights together after it was struck down as an antitrust violation by a court.

The CSFL says it includes all of FBS in part because it believes that will help it secure that exemption from Congress.

“If you exclude 100 schools, you create such opposition politically that it becomes unrealistic to think anything can get done,” Perna said. “That’s why we’re thinking 136 schools makes the most sense.”

How would revenue be shared?

Both models claim that schools would at the very least maintain existing revenues (and likely see them increase over time). The CSFL pitch mentions a “no worse off” objective compared to the current status quo, and Project Rudy ensures guaranteed minimums.

The CSFL would distribute 94 percent of revenue to the Power 12 conferences, spread relatively evenly between the 72 schools, with six percent going to the Group of 8.

Project Rudy features a tiered revenue distribution that would be determined each season by on-field performance while at the same time building in guaranteed minimums to maintain existing revenue. Conference makeups remain the same, but based on performance, Tier 1 would include 16 schools that receive 3 to 3.3 percent each of media rights revenue. Tier 2, made up of 22 schools, would receive 1.2 to 1.4 percent each, and the 32 schools in Tier 3 would receive between 0.7-0.8 percent each. The tiers reset each season. A potential Tier 4 could include the Group of 5, but those revenue figures were not projected.

Convincing the top Big Ten and SEC schools to agree to a change that doesn’t include tiered revenue is unlikely, given the advantage they already hold.

Individual schools would continue to retain all ticket sales, local sponsorships, fundraising dollars and other additional revenue streams.

How would players be paid?

The CSFL recommends a collective bargaining agreement with a players association, which could also help the league lobby Congress for that antitrust exemption. The CSFL itself would pay athletes through broadcast NIL (paid directly to players) and group NIL pay to the players association. Athletes could also have their individual NIL deals. Under this idea, athletes wouldn’t be employees, and schools wouldn’t have to pay them directly unless they chose to under a collectively bargained salary cap.

Project Rudy, on the other hand, states that schools can follow the planned 22 percent revenue-sharing cap put forth in the House settlement, or they could create a new model.

How would transfers work?

The CSFL proposes a maximum of two transfers allowed during five years of eligibility. The Project Rudy pitch states there would be centrally regulated and standardized contracts to create roster stability.

What would the playoff format look like?

The CSFL would have a 24-team playoff with division winners and wild-card spots. Project Rudy modeled a 12-team playoff but recommends considering a 24-team model “while respecting current structure providing access to Group of Five schools as well,” according to the pitch deck.

The current CFP has a TV deal with ESPN that runs through 2031.

What about basketball and other sports?

Both models are football-only but also project that the revenues earned by football would be enough to cover the increasing financial burdens via the House settlement while also continuing to subsidize non-revenue sports. The CSFL proposal notes that sports beyond football could either continue competing within their current conference affiliations or “return to their traditional, geographic conferences.”

What comes next?

There is no set timeline. The Big Ten and SEC control the most power. They, for now, have little interest in a change. But many others throughout college sports are concerned about the future and want to continue these conversations, both publicly and privately.

“There needs to be a change,” said Mark Abbott, the former president of Major League Soccer and another member of the CST leadership team. “There are going to be a variety of different views on what that change should be, so this is the exact right time for us to be part of that conversation.”

 (Photo: Aaron M. Sprecher / Getty Images)