Abstract
Paper One argued that the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s enduring product is insulation. This paper asks what kind of structure could supply that product, and finds an unusual one. In the ordinary case, the body that governs an enterprise also holds its most valuable assets and commands the leverage that asset-ownership confers; risk, where it can be shifted, is pushed downward onto weaker parties. College sports inverts this arrangement. The nominally governing body holds the enterprise’s liability — it is the named antitrust defendant, the absorber of reputational cost, the keeper of a broad and unequal membership — while the governed conferences hold the revenue-generating assets, the media inventory and the brands. Control, the right to the residual revenue, and the residual risk, which normally travel together, have been pulled apart: assets and control have drifted up to the conferences while risk has lodged in the association. The paper develops this inversion as the structural reason for the volume’s central instability, reads the Association as a kind of captive that absorbed its members’ risk until its non-monetary capital was exhausted, situates the case within the broader typology of asymmetric institutional relationships, and shows why holders of assets move to shed a risk-holding body only when they believe they can hold the risk themselves — a belief the recent enforcement experiment has called into question.
1. From product to structure
The previous paper identified what the Association produces and left open the question of how. Insulation is not a thing a body can simply declare itself to provide; it must be carried by a structure capable of holding what the insulated parties wish to set down. A buffer is, after all, only useful if it is positioned between two things, and the analytic work of locating the buffer is the work of mapping what sits on either side of it. That map is the subject of this paper.
The finding is that the map is upside down relative to what the organizational chart shows. On paper, the Association governs and the conferences and schools are its members, subordinate to its bylaws and its enforcement. In the substance that matters — who owns the things that generate the money, and who carries the exposure the money attracts — the relationship runs the other way. The conferences hold the assets. The Association holds the liability. The body that appears to be the principal is, in the dimensions that govern the enterprise’s behavior, closer to a held instrument of the parties it nominally governs. This is the inverted holding structure, and once it is seen, the whole sequence of recent events reads as the predictable behavior of asset-holders straining against a risk-holder whose services they have come to value less and whose price they have come to resent more.
This paper does not argue that the inversion is the result of anyone’s design. Like the buffer itself, it accreted, and like the buffer it is most visible at the moment of strain. The argument proceeds by establishing each half of the map — assets, then liability — then by showing that the two halves have been separated in a way that ordinary governance keeps joined, by reading that separation through the lens of a captive insurer that has spent its capital, and finally by situating the whole arrangement within the broader study of asymmetric institutional relationships and drawing out what the inversion implies for the breakaway.
2. The argument in brief
Three claims carry the paper. First, the revenue-generating assets of college sports sit at the conference and institutional level, not at the level of the Association; the single most valuable property, the football postseason at the top tier, sits entirely outside the Association’s structure. Second, the liability of the enterprise — legal, reputational, and political — is concentrated in the Association, which holds it on behalf of members who generate it. Third, this division separates three things that sound governance keeps together: control of the enterprise, the right to its residual revenue, and the bearing of its residual risk. In the normal case these align; whoever profits also controls and also bears the downside. Here, profit and control have migrated to the conferences while the downside has stayed with the Association.
From these claims a fourth follows, which the rest of the volume develops: an arrangement that splits risk from assets in this way is unstable, because the risk-holder has exposure without leverage and the asset-holders have leverage without commensurate exposure. Such an arrangement persists only as long as the asset-holders value the risk-absorption enough to keep paying for it, in the currency of cross-subsidy and diluted governance. When the value of the absorption falls and its price rises at the same time — which is precisely what the collapse of amateurism and the widening of the revenue gap accomplished together — the asset-holders begin to reconsider. The breakaway is that reconsideration. Its difficulty, established in Paper One and explained structurally here, is that shedding the risk-holder means holding the risk oneself, and a party that has spent a century letting another body hold its risk is poorly equipped to take it up.
3. Who holds the assets
The assets of college sports are of two kinds, and neither is held by the Association.
The first kind is media inventory: the right to broadcast games. Since the 1984 decision that stripped the Association of its control over football television, this inventory has belonged to the conferences, which negotiate their own media agreements and distribute the proceeds to their members.¹ The conferences are, in the most concrete sense, media-rights holding companies with athletic competitions attached; their realignment over the past decade — the gathering of programs into ever larger blocs — has been driven almost entirely by the logic of media value rather than by geography, rivalry, or any athletic consideration. The Big Ten and the Southeastern Conference are large because large conferences command larger rights fees, and the assets they hold are the contracts those fees flow through. The Association does not hold these contracts and does not share in them.
The second kind of asset is the brand: the accumulated loyalty, history, and identity that make a particular program’s games worth watching and its merchandise worth buying. Brands of this sort are held at the institutional level — they belong to the universities and, by aggregation, to the conferences that assemble them — and they are the deeper source of the media inventory’s value, since the inventory is only worth what audiences will pay attention to. Here again the Association holds nothing. It did not build the brands, does not own them, and cannot monetize them. Its own brand, such as it is, attaches to a single property, the Division I men’s basketball tournament, which is genuinely valuable and genuinely the Association’s, but which is not the property the breakaway leagues covet and not large enough to anchor the enterprise.
The decisive fact is the location of the most valuable asset of all. The top-tier football postseason, the College Football Playoff, is administered not by the Association but by a separate body controlled by the conferences and Notre Dame.² The enterprise’s crown jewel was placed outside the Association’s structure, and the recent contest over its format — conducted through a memorandum that hands format control to the two largest conferences specifically to discourage them from leaving to form their own playoff — is a contest among the asset-holders over an asset the Association never held.³ When the most valuable property in an enterprise sits outside the governing body, the governing body is not, in any meaningful sense, governing the enterprise. It is holding something else.
4. Who holds the liability
What the Association holds is the liability, and the liability is also of two kinds.
The first is legal exposure. As Paper One established, the Association has been the named defendant in the antitrust litigation that has reshaped the enterprise, and its breadth of membership was the very feature that made the shared restraints defensible. The exposure was held collectively, in the Association’s name, which is what allowed the restraints to be presented as the governance of a joint venture rather than as collusion among a few dominant firms. The House settlement made the magnitude of this held exposure plain: the back-compensation obligation ran to roughly two and a half billion dollars, an amount the defendants agreed to pay rather than continue defending the amateurism theory in court.⁴ That the conferences and the Association share the obligation does not change the structural point; the body built to hold the legal exposure is the body through which the exposure ran, and the settlement is the bill for risk that had been accumulating on the Association’s books for decades.
The second kind of liability is the membership itself. The Association holds more than a thousand institutions of wildly varying size and resource level, and the obligation to govern them all — to write rules that apply across the range, to administer championships for sports that generate no revenue, to manage the competing interests of the wealthy and the struggling — is a liability in its own right. The breadth that supplied the legal buffer is also a perpetual administrative and political burden, and it is a burden the conferences do not want to carry, which is the whole content of the have-and-have-not tension developed in Papers Three and Four. The Association holds the long tail of schools. The conferences hold the brands and the contracts. The body that holds the tail also holds the exposure; the bodies that hold the assets have been holding neither.
This is the map. Assets up, with the conferences; liability down, with the Association. The buffer of Paper One sits exactly at the seam between the two, which is why it is the seam that everything now strains against.
5. The principal-agent inversion
The map’s significance becomes clear against the ordinary logic of governance. In a well-formed arrangement, three things travel together. Control — the right to direct the enterprise — sits with whoever holds the residual claim, the right to what is left after obligations are met, because aligning direction with the residual claim gives the director a reason to direct well. And both sit with whoever bears the residual risk, the exposure to loss, because a party that profits from success should answer for failure. Control, residual claim, and residual risk are the three strands of ownership, and sound structures braid them.⁵
College sports has unbraided them. The residual claim — the revenue that remains after the games are played — flows to the conferences and their members, through media contracts the Association does not touch. Control has followed the claim: the conferences set their own membership, sell their own inventory, and, in the case of the playoff, now hold formal authority over the format of the enterprise’s central property.⁶ But the residual risk did not follow. It stayed with the Association, the named defendant and the keeper of the membership. The party that profits and the party that directs are increasingly one — the conferences — while the party that answers for the enterprise’s legal and reputational failures is another, the Association.
This is the inversion, and it is worth naming precisely because it is easy to miss behind the organizational chart. The chart says the Association is the principal and the conferences are its members, its agents in the governance sense. The structure says the opposite: the conferences hold the residual claim and the control that mark a principal, and the Association holds the residual risk that a principal is supposed to bear on its own behalf, not on someone else’s. The formal principal has become the substantive risk-bearer for the substantive principals. An arrangement in which the body that bears the downside neither owns the assets nor, increasingly, directs their use is an arrangement with the incentives pulled apart at the joints.
Such an arrangement does not correct itself, because each party’s position is locally comfortable. The conferences enjoy the residual claim and growing control while the Association absorbs the risk; why would they volunteer to take the risk back? The Association, for its part, derives its institutional reason for existing from holding what the conferences will not, and a body rarely argues itself out of its own purpose. The inversion is stable in the way an unbraced structure is stable — until the load changes. The load changed when amateurism fell and the revenue gap widened, and the rest of this volume is, in one sense, the study of what an inverted structure does under a load it was never braced to carry.
6. The captive that spent its capital
A second reading of the same map sharpens the instability. The Association can be understood as a captive: a risk-absorbing body owned and populated by the very parties whose risk it absorbs, existing to let those parties carry on a hazardous activity while holding the resulting exposure at one remove. A captive of the ordinary commercial kind must be capitalized; it must hold reserves sufficient to pay the claims it exists to absorb, or it cannot perform its function when the claims arrive. The analogy illuminates the Association’s position because the Association’s reserves were never primarily monetary. Its capital was a legal theory and a stock of legitimacy.
The legal theory was amateurism, and specifically the doctrine that the people generating the revenue were students rather than employees and that the rules governing them were therefore educational rather than commercial. This theory was the reserve against which the legal buffer paid out: so long as it held, the Association could absorb antitrust claims by characterizing its restraints as product-defining rules of an educational enterprise. The stock of legitimacy was the accumulated weight of a century during which members treated the Association’s rules as binding because they always had been; this was the reserve against which the political buffer paid out, allowing coordination to be enforced as governance.
Both reserves were drawn down across a generation of litigation and then, in the House settlement, effectively exhausted. The amateurism theory was abandoned rather than defended; the two-and-a-half-billion-dollar obligation was the claim the captive could no longer absorb on the strength of its legal capital, and so the members had to pay it more or less directly.⁷ The political capital was spent in parallel: when the conferences took enforcement out of the Association and into a new commission, they discovered that the new body held none of the accumulated legitimacy the Association had banked, and that its rulings would not stick — members hunted loopholes, encouraged athletes to challenge rejected deals, and balked at vesting the commission with the power to punish them.⁸ A captive whose capital is gone is a captive in name only; it can no longer pay the claims it was built to absorb, and its owners must either recapitalize it or carry the risk themselves.
This is the precise situation the enterprise now occupies. The Association as a risk-absorbing structure has been decapitalized — its legal theory abandoned, its legitimacy strained — and its members face the choice every owner of an exhausted captive faces. They can recapitalize the buffer, which in this context means securing from Congress the statutory accommodation that would give a new enforcement scheme legal cover, an accommodation that has so far failed to arrive.⁹ Or they can hold the risk themselves, which is the breakaway. The inversion explains why neither option is easy: the asset-holders have spent a century arranging matters so that they would not have to hold their own risk, and an enterprise structured around that arrangement cannot quickly produce parties capable of holding it.
7. The inversion against the asymmetric-power typology
The case is unusual enough to warrant locating within the broader study of asymmetric institutional relationships, where it occupies a position that the more common patterns do not prepare one to expect.
The typical asymmetric relationship pairs a dominant party with a subordinate one, and the asymmetry runs in a consistent direction across every dimension: the dominant party holds the assets, commands the control, and possesses the means to push risk downward onto the subordinate, who holds none of these and absorbs what is pushed down. This is the shape of most relationships between the strong and the weak, and it is the shape one’s intuitions are calibrated to recognize. A second, less common pattern reverses the moral valence while keeping the alignment intact: a body that holds assets and control may also voluntarily hold risk on a subordinate’s behalf, as a genuine guarantor or protector does, accepting downside it could have shifted. In both patterns the strands stay braided; the strong either keep risk away from themselves or take it up deliberately, but in either case the party with the assets and the party with the exposure are coherently related.
College sports presents a third configuration, rarer and easy to misread because formal authority and substantive power point in opposite directions. The body with formal authority — the Association, the nominal governor — holds the risk but not the assets. The bodies with substantive power — the conferences, the nominal members — hold the assets but, until recently, not the risk. The asymmetry is therefore concealed rather than displayed: the organizational chart shows a strong governor presiding over members, while the asset-and-risk map shows the members holding everything that generates value and the governor holding everything that attracts loss. This is asymmetry inverted by form, a case in which the apparently dominant party is the substantively exposed one and the apparently subordinate parties are the substantively dominant ones.
The configuration matters beyond its rarity because it generates a distinctive failure mode. In the ordinary asymmetric relationship, instability arrives when the subordinate gains enough strength to resist the downward push of risk. Here, instability arrives differently: it arrives when the substantively dominant parties, having held the assets all along, conclude that the formal governor’s risk-absorption is no longer worth its price and move to discard it — only to find that the form they are discarding was load-bearing in ways the substance had let them ignore. The party that looked subordinate turns out to have been holding the enterprise’s exposure together, and its discarding does not transfer that function so much as scatter it. The breakaway is not a strong party throwing off a weak one. It is asset-holders discovering, in the act of trying to shed their risk-holder, that they had outsourced something they did not know how to take back.
8. Why asset-holders shed a risk-holder
The inversion finally explains the timing and the hesitation of the breakaway in a single account. Holders of assets move to shed a body that holds their risk only under a specific combination of conditions, and that combination has only recently assembled.
The first condition is that the price of keeping the risk-holder must rise. The price the conferences pay for the Association’s risk-absorption is cross-subsidy of weaker members and dilution of their own governance voice, and that price rises as the revenue gap widens, because each dollar shared with a have-not school is a larger sacrifice when the haves are pulling further ahead. The widening of the media-revenue gap over the realignment decade therefore raised the premium the asset-holders were paying for insulation, independent of any change in the insulation itself. This is the engine of the cross-subsidy tension developed in the next two papers, seen here from the asset-holders’ side as a rising insurance cost.
The second condition is that the coverage must degrade. A buffer worth a high premium when it reliably absorbs claims is worth far less when it has been shown not to. The collapse of amateurism degraded the coverage directly: the legal theory that made the Association’s risk-absorption effective is gone, so the same premium now buys a thinner shield. When the price of insurance rises and the coverage falls at the same time, the rational insured party reconsiders, and the conferences’ open exploration of self-governance is exactly that reconsideration.¹⁰
The third condition is the decisive one, and it is the condition that is not met. To shed a risk-holder is to take up the risk oneself, and this is rational only for a party able to self-insure — able to hold and manage its own exposure more cheaply than it pays another to hold it. The conferences cannot yet do this, and they have proved it to themselves. The enforcement commission they created to begin holding their own risk could not make its authority stick, could not bind its own members, and could not generate the legitimacy that makes restraints hold.¹¹ A party that cannot govern a single function it has taken in-house is not a party ready to hold the whole of an enterprise’s exposure. The third condition fails, and its failure is why the breakaway remains, in the candid view of close observers, more plausible than imminent, restrained less by sentiment than by the complexity of reproducing what the Association holds.¹²
The result is not exit but renegotiation. An asset-holder who finds the premium too high and the coverage too thin, yet cannot self-insure, does not cancel the policy; it demands better terms. The recent settlement of the playoff-format question — control handed to the two largest conferences in exchange for their staying inside the arrangement — is precisely such a renegotiation, a reduction in the governance dilution the conferences pay while the Association continues, for now, to hold the risk.¹³ The inversion thus predicts the present equilibrium with some precision: not a clean separation of assets from the risk-holder, but a continual contest over how little the asset-holders can pay while still keeping the risk where they have always kept it. Whether any stable end-state lies beyond this contest is the question Paper Nine takes up. The structural point of the present paper is that the contest is what an inverted holding structure produces under load, and that the load is not going to ease.
9. Conclusion
College sports is governed by a body that holds its liability but not its assets, and owned, in every sense that drives behavior, by parties that hold its assets but have arranged not to hold its liability. Control and the residual claim have migrated to the conferences while the residual risk has stayed with the Association, unbraiding the three strands that sound governance keeps together. The Association can be read as a captive that absorbed its members’ risk against reserves of legal theory and accumulated legitimacy, and that has now spent both, leaving its owners to choose between recapitalizing the buffer and holding the risk themselves. Within the study of asymmetric institutional relationships, the case is the rare one in which formal authority and substantive power point in opposite directions, so that the apparently dominant governor is the substantively exposed party and the apparently subordinate members are the substantive principals. And the inversion explains the breakaway’s timing and its hesitation at once: the asset-holders move to shed their risk-holder because the premium has risen and the coverage has thinned, but they cannot complete the move because shedding the risk-holder means holding the risk, and they have built an enterprise expressly so that they would not have to.
What the inversion does not yet explain is the content of the premium — the cross-subsidy itself, the mechanism by which unequal members are bound into one body and the haves are made to carry the have-nots. That mechanism is the next object of study. Paper Three takes up the cross-subsidy compact directly: how the Association binds radically unequal institutions, why the haves experience that binding as a tax, and why the contemplated breakaway is, at its root, a refusal to keep paying it.
Notes
- The 1984 decision deregulating football television is treated at greater length in Paper One. Its lasting structural effect is the one relevant here: it located the football media asset at the conference level, where it has remained and around which conference realignment has since organized.
- The College Football Playoff’s governance sits with a board comprising the ten Football Bowl Subdivision conferences and Notre Dame, separate from the NCAA. The placement of the enterprise’s most valuable property outside the Association is the clearest single instance of the asset-and-liability split this paper maps.
- The format memorandum granting the two largest conferences control beginning in 2026 was reported as a measure to discourage their departure to form a separate playoff. This paper reads the concession as a renegotiation of the governance-dilution premium rather than as a resolution of the underlying instability.
- The roughly two-and-a-half-billion-dollar back-compensation figure is the settlement’s headline liability and is treated here as the realized cost of risk long held on the Association’s books. The figure is distinct from the going-forward revenue-share cap discussed in Papers Three through Six.
- The braiding of control, residual claim, and residual risk is the core insight of the economic theory of ownership and the firm; the strands are separable in principle but costly to separate in practice, and their separation is the diagnostic feature of the arrangement examined here. The framing draws on the agency-cost and theory-of-the-firm literature cited below.
- “Control has followed the claim” describes a direction of movement, not a completed transfer. The conferences do not yet hold all control; the Association retains formal authority over much of the enterprise. The point is the trajectory, which the playoff-format concession exemplifies.
- That the conferences share the back-compensation obligation with the Association does not undo the structural reading. The captive analogy concerns where the risk was held as it accumulated, not the final apportionment of a settlement reached once the captive’s capital was spent.
- The early dysfunction of the enforcement commission is documented in the reporting cited in Paper One and again below. It is offered here as evidence that the Association’s political capital — accumulated legitimacy — does not transfer to a new body by charter.
- The failure of federal legislation to supply an antitrust accommodation is the failed “recapitalization” option. Its mechanics and the antitrust paradox it reflects are the subject of Paper Six.
- The “asymmetric-power typology” referenced in Section 7 is the author’s own framework, developed in a separate body of work on asymmetric institutional relationships; the present paper applies it rather than restating it.
References
Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. American Economic Review, 62(5), 777–795.
Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.
College Sports Commission overview and enforcement structure. (2026, February 4). The House v. NCAA settlement explained: What it means for the future of pay for college student-athletes. Honest Game. https://honestgame.com/blog/house-vs-the-ncaa/
Greenspoon Marder LLP. (2025, October 29). The House v. NCAA settlement: A new era for college athletics. https://www.gmlaw.com/news/house-v-ncaa-settlement-a-new-era-for-college-athletics/
Hansmann, H. (1996). The ownership of enterprise. Harvard University Press.
House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2025) (final approval of settlement).
If the Big Ten and SEC want to break away from the NCAA, it’s time for the rest of college athletics to call their bluff. (2026, May). Yahoo Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/if-the-big-ten-and-sec-want-to-break-away-from-the-ncaa-its-time-for-the-rest-of-college-athletics-to-call-their-bluff-183506028.html
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984).
SEC, Big Ten leaders express uncertainty with College Football Playoff as future formatting questions linger. (2025). CBS Sports. https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/sec-big-ten-leaders-express-uncertainty-with-college-football-playoff-as-future-formatting-questions-linger
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. Free Press.
With potential split from CSC on the table, college sports leaders struggling to find solutions to money problems. (2026, May). Yahoo Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/with-potential-split-from-csc-on-the-table-college-sports-leaders-struggling-to-find-solutions-to-money-problems–the-big-ten-and-sec-should-break-away-and-do-their-own-deal-144449817.html
