Abstract
Paper Two located the premium that asset-holding conferences pay for the Association’s risk-absorption in two currencies: cross-subsidy of weaker members and dilution of their own governance voice. This paper takes the first currency as its subject. It argues that the National Collegiate Athletic Association is, structurally, a compact that binds radically unequal institutions into a single body and enforces transfers from the strong to the weak through three mechanisms — a governance rule that allots influence without regard to revenue, a revenue-distribution formula that routes the enterprise’s most valuable shared property toward broad participation rather than toward the schools that drive it, and a championship structure that pools small and large programs in common competition. The haves experience this compact as a tax, and the contemplated breakaway is, at its root, the refusal to keep paying it. The paper distinguishes the cross-subsidy that genuinely buys the legal buffer of Paper One from the cross-subsidy that merely redistributes, shows why the basketball tournament served as the cohesion device that football never required, and reframes secession not as a quest for autonomy but as the repudiation of a transfer obligation. It treats the survival of the recipients of that transfer as a separate question, reserved for Paper Four.
1. The premium named
The preceding paper described a price without itemizing it. The conferences that hold the assets of college sports pay, it argued, a premium to the Association that holds their risk, and that premium rises as the revenue gap widens until the asset-holders begin to reconsider whether the coverage is worth the cost. But a premium paid in an unnamed currency cannot be analyzed, and the recurrent frustration of the powerful conferences cannot be understood until the thing they are paying is specified. This paper specifies it. The premium is cross-subsidy: the binding of unequal members into one body and the enforced flow of resources, influence, and competitive access from the strong toward the weak.
The specification matters because cross-subsidy is easy to moralize in either direction and difficult to see clearly. One account treats it as the noble core of the collegiate model — the means by which a national association of schools sustains opportunity for athletes and programs that could never survive on their own commercial merits, and by which the wealthy carry the modest in a shared enterprise. The opposing account treats it as a confiscation — the means by which a few programs that generate nearly all the value are forced to surrender a portion of it to a thousand institutions that contribute little and resent the contributors. Both accounts describe the same transfers. The structural task is not to adjudicate between the moral framings but to map the mechanisms that effect the transfer, to identify who gains and who loses at each, and to determine which transfers buy something the payers value and which merely move resources from those who have them to those who do not.
That last distinction is the analytic hinge of the paper. Not all cross-subsidy is alike. Some of it purchases the legal buffer of Paper One, because the breadth and heterogeneity of the membership are exactly what made the Association’s restraints defensible, and breadth is sustained only by carrying members who would not otherwise belong. This cross-subsidy is, for the haves, a genuine premium — payment for a service rendered. Other cross-subsidy purchases nothing the haves value; it simply redistributes, sustaining weak programs because the compact requires it, not because the strong derive any benefit from the weak surviving. Disentangling the premium that buys coverage from the transfer that merely redistributes is the key to understanding why the haves tolerated the compact for so long and why they now strain against it. The breakaway is not a rejection of all cross-subsidy. It is the discovery, by the haves, of how much of it bought them nothing.
2. The argument in brief
The paper advances four claims. First, the Association binds unequal members through three concrete mechanisms — one-institution-one-vote governance, the distribution of the basketball tournament’s revenue toward broad participation, and the pooling of unequal programs in common championships — and these mechanisms together constitute the cross-subsidy compact. Second, the compact divides into a portion that buys the legal and political buffer, by sustaining the breadth that made shared restraints defensible and the legitimacy that made them stick, and a portion that merely redistributes, sustaining weak members for no return the strong can name. Third, the haves experience the whole compact as a tax because they cannot easily separate the buffer-buying portion from the merely redistributive portion, and because the collapse of the buffer has made even the buffer-buying portion look like pure loss. Fourth, the breakaway is the structural repudiation of the transfer obligation: not a positive desire for self-rule, which Paper One showed the conferences are poorly equipped to exercise, but a negative refusal to keep carrying members from whom they derive nothing they still value.
These claims set up the volume’s middle movement. The present paper takes the compact from the side of those who pay it; Paper Four takes the same compact from the side of those who receive it, asking what becomes of the long tail of schools when the transfer is withdrawn. The two papers are halves of one analysis, and neither is complete alone.
3. The first mechanism: governance without regard to revenue
The compact’s first and most galling mechanism, from the haves’ vantage, is the allocation of governance influence without regard to revenue contribution. In the Association’s traditional structure, a small private college fielding teams that generate no broadcast value and draw no national audience holds a vote, a seat, a procedural standing that is not scaled to what it brings to the enterprise. The principle is the familiar one of associational democracy: members are members, and membership rather than market value confers voice. For an association of equals it is unobjectionable. For an association of radical unequals it is the mechanism by which the many modest members can, in combination, bind the few who generate the value.
The structural consequence is that the schools producing nearly all the revenue do not control the rules under which they produce it. A restraint they find intolerable can be sustained by the votes of members who bear none of its costs; a reform they need can be blocked by members who would lose the protections the status quo affords them. This is the governance dilution that Paper Two named as the second currency of the premium, and it is felt by the haves as a standing affront: they generate the value and answer for the risk, yet they are outvoted by parties who do neither. The long migration of real decision-making out of the Association’s one-institution-one-vote chambers and into conference offices and the separate playoff board is, read structurally, the haves routing around a governance mechanism they could not win within. Where they could not change the vote, they moved the decision to a body where the vote did not apply.
The recent challenge from a have-not athletic director, daring the powerful conferences to leave and insisting that if they go they must take all their sports rather than only football, is best understood as a defense of this mechanism.¹ The have-nots’ leverage rests precisely on the compact’s refusal to scale voice to revenue; their voice is larger than their contribution, and a breakaway that dissolved the compact would dissolve that voice. The dare is the rhetoric of a party that knows its standing is a creature of the very binding the haves wish to escape.
4. The second mechanism: the tournament as the redistributive engine
The compact’s financial heart is the distribution of the men’s basketball tournament’s revenue. This single property generates the overwhelming share of the Association’s income, and the formula by which that income is returned to the membership is the principal channel through which resources flow from the enterprise’s center toward its periphery. The distribution rewards participation and tournament success across a broad field of conferences, including many whose members generate little independent value, so that the proceeds of the enterprise’s most valuable shared property are routed toward breadth rather than concentrated where the underlying audience and brand value reside.²
This mechanism is the clearest case of genuine redistribution, and it is also the mechanism that has historically held the compact together, for a reason worth drawing out. The tournament is a shared property in a way that football, since 1984, has not been. Football’s media value was located at the conference level and could be captured by the conferences directly; there was no national football pool that bound the membership, because the deregulation of football television dissolved any such pool. Basketball’s signature property remained national, remained the Association’s, and remained the one large stream that ran through the center and out to the whole membership. The tournament was therefore the cohesion device of the entire enterprise — the reason a national association held together at all once football had localized its riches. It gave the modest members a tangible stake in the shared body and gave the powerful members a property they could not fully capture for themselves, and the combination is what made the compact endure.
The asymmetry between the two sports is the structural key to the whole have-and-have-not tension. Football, the larger prize, was localized and capturable; basketball, the smaller but still substantial prize, stayed national and shared. The haves’ grievance is sharpest precisely where the value is largest and the sharing is least escapable in form but most resented in substance. They generate the football value and keep it; they participate in the basketball pool and find their share diluted by the breadth the pool is designed to sustain. The compact’s redistributive engine runs on the one large property the haves could not localize, which is exactly why they experience the engine as a tax on the property they could.
5. The third mechanism: pooling unequal programs in common competition
The compact’s third mechanism is the least monetary and the most overlooked: the pooling of unequal programs in common championships and common competition. To belong to the Association is to play within a structure in which a small program and a large one are, formally, fellow competitors under common rules, eligible for the same championships, bound by the same eligibility and roster requirements. This pooling is a transfer of a non-obvious kind. It transfers legitimacy and access to the weak — the modest program’s standing as a genuine participant in the national enterprise — at the cost, to the strong, of being bound by rules written for the whole field rather than for the programs that drive the value.
The transfer is real even though no money changes hands at the point of pooling, because the common rulebook is calibrated to the membership’s breadth. A roster limit, an eligibility standard, a transfer restriction that suits a thousand institutions of every size will rarely be the rule the few revenue-driving programs would choose for themselves. The haves are made to compete under terms shaped by the needs and votes of members whose circumstances are nothing like their own, and the pooling is the mechanism that subjects them to those terms. This is cross-subsidy in the currency of constraint: the strong subsidize the weak not only with money but with their own submission to a common framework that the weak’s presence shapes.
Here the distinction between buffer-buying and merely redistributive cross-subsidy becomes sharp. The pooling buys something the haves genuinely valued: it is the breadth that made the shared restraints defensible as the governance of a joint venture rather than as collusion, the legal buffer of Paper One. A restraint on athlete compensation imposed across a thousand pooled institutions of every kind reads as a rule of the enterprise; the same restraint imposed by sixteen revenue-driving programs reads as a price-fix. So long as the legal buffer held, the pooling was a premium the haves paid willingly, because the breadth it sustained was the very thing that protected the restraints they relied upon. The pooling was the buffer-buying cross-subsidy, distinct from the merely redistributive flow of the tournament pool.
This is why the collapse of amateurism changed everything about how the compact is felt. Once the legal theory that made the restraints defensible was abandoned, the pooling stopped buying the buffer, because there was no longer a defensible restraint for breadth to protect. The premium that had purchased real coverage now purchased nothing, and the haves found themselves paying the cost of submission to a common framework without receiving the legal shelter that submission had bought. Cross-subsidy that had been a rational premium became, overnight, pure transfer. The breakaway sentiment intensified not because the compact changed but because the collapse of the buffer revealed that a large part of what the haves had been paying for was already gone.
6. Why the whole compact reads as a tax
The haves experience the entire compact as a tax, and the reason is that they cannot cleanly separate its parts. The three mechanisms are bundled into a single condition of membership: to belong is to accept the diluted vote, the redistributive tournament pool, and the pooling in common competition all at once, and there is no à la carte option that would let the haves retain the portions that benefit them while shedding the portions that merely redistribute. A party that pays a bundled price for a bundle whose components have come apart in value will experience the whole bundle as overpriced, and that is the haves’ situation precisely.
Two features deepen the perception. The first is the absence of a visible return on the redistributive portion. The tournament pool sustains weak programs, but the haves derive no benefit they can name from those programs surviving; the survival is a good to the recipients and to the collegiate model in the abstract, but not a service rendered to the payers. Unlike the pooling, which once bought the legal buffer, the redistributive flow buys the haves nothing, and cross-subsidy that buys the payer nothing is indistinguishable, from the payer’s side, from a tax. The second feature is the contagion of the buffer’s collapse. Because amateurism’s fall converted the buffer-buying pooling into mere transfer, the haves now perceive the whole compact — including the portions that formerly bought real coverage — as redistribution without return. The collapse did not merely remove one benefit; it recolored the entire arrangement, so that even the components that had once been rational premiums now look like the same confiscation as the components that never were.
The result is a perception that runs ahead of the arithmetic. The actual dollars transferred through the tournament pool, set against the revenues the haves retain from their own media contracts, are not so large as to threaten the wealthy programs; the haves are not impoverished by the compact.³ But the perception of cross-subsidy as a tax is not driven primarily by the magnitude of the transfer. It is driven by the bundling, by the absence of a nameable return on the redistributive portion, and by the recoloring that followed the buffer’s collapse. The haves resent the compact out of proportion to what it costs them, because resentment tracks the perceived absence of return rather than the size of the payment, and the perceived return has gone to nearly nothing.
7. The breakaway as refusal of transfer
These elements compose a precise account of what the breakaway is, beneath the language of autonomy and self-governance in which it is usually conducted. The breakaway is the structural repudiation of the transfer obligation. It is not, at its root, a positive program — the conferences have shown, in the enforcement experiment of Paper One, that they are poorly equipped to govern themselves and possess none of the accumulated legitimacy that makes restraints stick. It is a negative act: the refusal to keep carrying members from whom the haves derive nothing they still value, now that the buffer those members helped sustain has collapsed.
Reading the breakaway as refusal-of-transfer rather than desire-for-autonomy resolves a puzzle that the autonomy framing cannot. If the conferences wanted self-rule for its own sake, their inability to exercise it well would be a fatal objection, and they would abandon the project upon discovering, as they did with the enforcement commission, how badly they govern. But they have not abandoned it; the interest persists despite the demonstrated difficulty, because the project is not really about acquiring the power to govern. It is about ceasing to pay the transfer. A party that wishes to stop paying a tax need not be competent at the thing the tax funds; it need only wish to keep its money. The persistence of breakaway sentiment in the face of the conferences’ evident unreadiness to govern is explained the moment one sees that governance was never the point. The point was the refusal.
This reading also clarifies the curious shape of the haves’ actual conduct, which has been to route around the compact rather than to leave it. They moved decisions to the playoff board where the diluted vote did not apply; they took enforcement into a commission they controlled; they negotiated format control as the price of staying. Each move sheds a portion of the transfer obligation without incurring the full cost of holding the risk that departure would require. The haves are, in effect, attempting to default selectively on the parts of the compact they value least while retaining the Association’s risk-absorption, which they still cannot reproduce. The breakaway in its full form — total departure — remains the limiting case they approach but do not reach, because reaching it would mean taking up the risk the compact’s transfer obligation was, in part, the price of setting down. The refusal of transfer runs up against the inability to self-insure, and the collision produces not exit but the endless renegotiation Paper Two described.
8. What the compact’s recipients face
The account so far has been conducted entirely from the side of those who pay the transfer. It has shown why the haves perceive the compact as a tax, which portions of it bought them something and which did not, and why the breakaway is the refusal to keep paying. It has said almost nothing about the parties on the other side of the transfer — the broad membership of modest programs whose participation, legitimacy, and survival the compact sustains. This silence is deliberate and is the boundary of the present paper.
The recipients’ position cannot be inferred from the payers’ grievance, because the question that matters for them is different in kind. For the haves, the compact is a premium whose worth has fallen; the relevant question is whether to keep paying. For the have-nots, the compact is the structure within which they exist as participants in national competition at all; the relevant question is whether they survive its withdrawal, and in what form. A transfer that the payers experience as a modest and resented tax may be, to the recipients, the difference between a viable athletic program and none. The asymmetry of stakes is itself a structural fact: the haves risk a perceived overpayment, while the have-nots risk their existence as the kind of institution the compact made them. To analyze the recipients’ position requires its own apparatus — the economics of the non-revenue sports the transfer sustains, the binding constraint of sex-equity law on how any school may spend, the consolidation pressures that a withdrawn transfer would unleash, and the question of what a “have-not” even is once the compact that defined the category dissolves.
That apparatus is the subject of Paper Four, which takes the same cross-subsidy compact and turns it over, examining the survival problem of the long tail from the inside. The present paper has established what the transfer is and why those who pay it have come to refuse it. The next establishes what its withdrawal would do to those who receive it. Only with both halves in view can the volume’s later papers weigh the breakaway’s full structural cost, because that cost is borne not only by the parties who contemplate it but by the far larger body of parties who would be left, by its completion, outside the compact that made them what they are.
9. Conclusion
The premium that asset-holding conferences pay for the Association’s risk-absorption is, in its first currency, the cross-subsidy compact: the binding of radically unequal members through governance that ignores revenue, a tournament pool that routes the enterprise’s great shared property toward breadth, and a pooling in common competition that subjects the strong to rules written for the whole field. The compact divides into a portion that genuinely bought the legal buffer, by sustaining the breadth and legitimacy that made shared restraints defensible, and a portion that merely redistributed. The haves tolerated the bundle while the buffer held, because the buffer-buying portion was a rational premium; they came to experience the whole bundle as a tax once the collapse of amateurism converted the buffer-buying portion into pure transfer and recolored the entire compact as redistribution without return. The breakaway is, structurally, the refusal of that transfer — a negative act of ceasing to pay rather than a positive program of self-rule, which is why it persists despite the conferences’ demonstrated unreadiness to govern, and why it expresses itself as selective default and endless renegotiation rather than as clean departure.
What the refusal would do to those on the receiving end remains to be examined. The compact made the long tail of modest programs into national participants, and its withdrawal would unmake them, by mechanisms and to a degree that the payers’ grievance gives no way to measure. Paper Four turns the compact over and reads it from the recipients’ side, taking up the survival problem of the have-nots as the necessary complement to the refusal analyzed here.
Notes
- The challenge from a Big 12 athletic director — daring the two largest conferences to depart and insisting that any departure must encompass all sports rather than football alone — is read here as a defense of the one-institution-one-vote mechanism on which have-not leverage depends. The demand that the haves “take all their sports” is, structurally, a demand that they cannot selectively default on the compact while retaining its benefits, which is precisely what they have been attempting.
- The men’s basketball tournament generates the dominant share of the Association’s revenue, and its distribution formula rewards conference participation and advancement across a broad field. The structural point is the routing toward breadth; the precise mechanics of the units-based distribution are detailed in the Association’s published revenue-distribution materials and are summarized rather than reproduced here.
- The claim that the transfer is modest relative to the haves’ retained media revenue is a structural judgment about magnitudes, not a precise accounting. The tournament-pool dollars flowing to any individual power-conference school are small beside that school’s conference media distribution; the resentment, the paper argues, tracks the absence of return rather than the size of the payment. A fuller quantification belongs to Paper Seven, which treats media revenue directly.
- The distinction between buffer-buying and merely redistributive cross-subsidy is this volume’s analytical framing, continuous with the buffer theory of Paper One and the inverted-holding analysis of Paper Two. It is not a distinction drawn in the industry’s own discourse, which tends to treat all cross-subsidy under the single moral heading of either “the collegiate model” or “the tax on the powerful.”
- The economics of redistributive transfers and their tendency to be perceived as taxation when the payer perceives no return draw on the standard public-finance treatment of cross-subsidy and the benefit principle; the framing is applied here rather than developed, and the foundational sources are listed below.
References
Big 12 AD challenges SEC, Big Ten to break away from NCAA amid CSC frustrations. (2026, May). Saturday Down South. https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/news/college-football/big-12-ad-challenges-sec-big-ten-to-break-away-from-ncaa/
Buchanan, J. M. (1968). The demand and supply of public goods. Rand McNally.
Fort, R., & Quirk, J. (1995). Cross-subsidization, incentives, and outcomes in professional team sports leagues. Journal of Economic Literature, 33(3), 1265–1299.
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
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984).
Musgrave, R. A. (1959). The theory of public finance: A study in public economy. McGraw-Hill.
Quirk, J., & Fort, R. D. (1992). Pay dirt: The business of professional team sports. Princeton University Press.
Sandy, R., Sloane, P. J., & Rosentraub, M. S. (2004). The economics of sport: An international perspective. Palgrave Macmillan.
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
