BYU-I Sports

The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 is suddenly back in the headlines, not because of the NFL or another pro league, but because of a push to extend its protections to college sports. If you watched college football recently, you may have seen “Save College Sports” commercials. These ads are funded by Cody Campbell, a wealthy former Texas Tech player and current Texas Tech Board of Regents chair, who believes revising the SBA could generate billions in new revenue for college athletics.

The SBA was passed in 1961 after a court ruling found that the NFL’s national TV deal violated antitrust law. Normally, competitors cannot jointly sell their media rights, but Congress gave leagues an exemption. This allowed professional leagues like the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL to pool broadcasting rights and sell them as a single package. The Act also created blackout protections, keeping pro games off TV during high school and college football timeslots.

The SBA applies only to professional sports. College athletics are excluded, thanks to the Supreme Court’s 1984 NCAA v. Board of Regents decision, which shifted TV rights power from the NCAA to individual schools and conferences. That is why fans now see fragmented media deals with SEC games on ESPN, Big Ten games on Fox, Pac-12 scattered across streaming services, and so on.

Campbell argues that this patchwork of conference-specific contracts leaves billions on the table. He estimates that college sports currently generate about $5 billion annually in media rights, but that a unified national package could more than double that to $12 billion. The extra money, he says, could save women’s and Olympic sports, reduce financial pressure on struggling athletic departments, and help programs outside the so-called Power Two conferences.

Through his self-funded 501(c)(4) group, Saving College Sports, Campbell has already spent six figures lobbying Congress. His ads aired on ESPN’s College GameDay and Fox’s Big Noon Kickoff, directing fans to his petition and advocacy website. He proposes forming a new entity, the United States Collegiate Athletics Corporation, to handle media negotiations and distribute revenue across schools.

Despite the flashy ads, there is no formal legislation to amend the SBA. Current bills in Congress, such as the SCORE Act, do not touch the law. Critics say Campbell’s campaign oversimplifies the issue and may be more about protecting institutions than athletes. Expanding antitrust exemptions could undercut the player rights movement that has already weakened NCAA control over broadcasting, NIL, and compensation rules. Others point out that applying a 1961 framework to today’s streaming-driven media environment might create more problems than it solves.

At first glance, a national college sports TV package seems far removed from BYU-Idaho, which has not fielded intercollegiate teams since 2000. But the outcome of this debate will shape the entire ecosystem of college athletics. If smaller programs gain financial stability through shared broadcast revenue, the pathway for schools considering re-entry into athletics could widen. For BYU-Idaho, the key issue is sustainability and whether athletics can be aligned with its mission without overwhelming financial strain. A restructured media landscape that reduces the financial risks for non-powerhouse schools would make the idea of Vikings sports returning to Rexburg more realistic.

The Sports Broadcasting Act might feel like dusty legislation from another era, but its future could influence how college sports survive and grow, and whether institutions like BYU-Idaho could eventually see athletics as part of their future again.