This conceptual case study examines the strategic crossroads facing SEC (Southeastern Conference) Commissioner Greg Sankey and Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti as they respond to perceived inequities in the College Football Playoff and consider whether to centralize power through a breakaway Super League or reform the system from within.
The case uses a narrative, decision-based format grounded in real-world developments, public records, and media reporting. It incorporates comparative examples from global sports centralization efforts and applies a pragmatist-stakeholder theoretical lens to guide strategic and ethical analysis.
The case highlights how centralization offers financial and competitive advantages but introduces significant risks, including stakeholder backlash, legal scrutiny, and the potential erosion of tradition. Ultimately, the case underscores the complex balance between profit, tradition, and public accountability in reshaping college athletics.
As a teaching case, it simplifies certain dynamics for instructional clarity. It is best suited for discussion and exploration rather than generalizable conclusions.
By examining real-world proposals like Project Rudy and the CSFL (College Student Football League), the case helps decision-makers anticipate stakeholder reactions, media implications, and governance challenges. It encourages critical thinking about how to balance tradition with innovation, and how to align institutional values with commercial pressures.
It raises ethical questions about access, equity, commercialization, and the cultural significance of college sports, especially for smaller institutions and underrepresented athletes.
This conceptual case study offers a timely and original exploration of college football's evolving power dynamics through the lens of strategic centralization. By integrating real-time developments with comparisons to global sports consolidations, it provides a fresh, multi-layered perspective on governance, athlete rights, media economics, and stakeholder management. It is especially valuable for sparking critical thinking about leadership, ethics, and institutional responsibility in high-stakes, high-visibility environments.
