The Pac-12's Collapse and Rebuild

Timeline

1. Jun 30, 2022USC and UCLA announce they will leave for the Big Ten after the 2023-24 season.
2. Jul 2023Colorado announces it will join the Big 12.
3. Aug 2023Oregon and Washington announce moves to the Big Ten; Arizona, Arizona State and Utah to the Big 12.
4. Sep 1, 2023The ACC admits Cal, Stanford and SMU.
5. Sep 8, 2023Oregon State and Washington State sue for control of the Pac-12 board.
6. Nov 14, 2023A Whitman County judge grants the two schools a preliminary injunction.
7. Dec 15, 2023The Washington Supreme Court denies review and lifts its stay.
8. Dec 2023All 12 schools reach a revenue settlement; the Pac-12 signs a football scheduling agreement with the Mountain West.
9. Sep 12, 2024The Pac-12 admits Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State and San Diego State for 2026.
10. Sep 24, 2024The Pac-12 sues the Mountain West over a 'poaching penalty.'
11. Sep 30, 2025A federal magistrate judge refuses to dismiss the Pac-12's suit over the Mountain West's termination fees.
12. Jul 1, 2026The new nine-member Pac-12 officially launches.
13. Jul 31, 2026Five departing schools sign a $49 million exit-fee settlement with the Mountain West.

The ethical issues

• Loyalty vs. self-interest: what departing schools owed to long-time partners and rivals.
• Conflicts of interest: whether schools on their way out should vote on the conference's assets.
• Distributive justice in dividing shared revenue and liabilities.
• Effects on athletes in all sports, including travel and lost rivalries.
• Leverage and fairness in the deals the remaining schools had to accept.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Oregon State and Washington State	Survival, revenue and control of the conference's assets.
Departing schools	Bigger media payouts and stable homes, plus their share of 2023-24 revenue.
Athletes in all sports	Competitive opportunity, travel burden and continuity.
Mountain West and its schools	Keeping members, or collecting fees when they leave.
Fans and regional communities	Historic rivalries and regional identity.
Media partners	Valuable inventory and stable conferences.

The case

For more than a century, the Pac-12 and its predecessors tied together universities across the American West. Within about 14 months, ten of its twelve members announced they were leaving for conferences offering bigger television money. The two schools left behind, Oregon State and Washington State, went to court over who would control what remained, and then rebuilt the league from schools in other conferences, setting off more disputes over who owed what to whom.

Background

The unraveling started on June 30, 2022, when USC and UCLA announced they would join the Big Ten after the 2023-24 season. A Washington Supreme Court commissioner later described the “apparent domino effect”: Colorado announced in July 2023 that it would join the Big 12; Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, Utah and Washington followed in August; Cal and Stanford followed in September.^[1] The ACC formally admitted Cal, Stanford and SMU on September 1, 2023, effective for the 2024-25 year.^[4]

Media money was at the center. The Pac-12’s proposed streaming deal with Apple reportedly guaranteed each school about $23 million a year, with more possible if subscriptions grew. Arizona’s president called that figure accurate, and many fans and doubters saw it as falling short of what other leagues paid. Arizona State President Michael Crow later said, “We had what I thought was a great offer from Apple,” and that Arizona State and Arizona left only after Oregon and Washington moved first.^[5]

The rules and governance

The conference’s constitution and bylaws addressed withdrawal. One provision said that if a member delivered a notice of withdrawal before August 1, 2024, its representative “shall automatically cease to be a member of the Pac-12 Board of Directors and shall cease to have the right to vote.” The departing schools argued that announcing a move was not the same as delivering a formal notice of withdrawal. Several told the commissioner they had not yet given notice.^[1] All twelve schools continued competing and assigning their media rights to the conference through August 1, 2024.^[1]

The fight for control

On September 8, 2023, Oregon State and Washington State sued the conference and its commissioner in Whitman County, Washington, arguing that the other ten had lost their board seats. A temporary order required unanimous consent for any board action.^[1] At a November 14 hearing, their lawyer argued that departing schools had no long-term interest in the conference’s success and might divide its assets and leave nothing behind. A lawyer for Washington said the departing schools only wanted a say on decisions about the current year, including fair distribution of its revenue.^[3] Judge Gary Libey granted a preliminary injunction recognizing only Oregon State and Washington State as board members. The other ten could attend and comment but not vote, and the judge said he trusted the two to treat the others fairly.^[3][1]

Washington and the conference sought emergency review. A Supreme Court commissioner temporarily stayed the injunction, noting that “tens of millions of dollars are at stake” and that athletes deciding where to enroll were “affected greatly.”^[1] On December 15, 2023, the full court denied review and lifted the stay, leaving the two schools in control.^[2]

The settlement

Days later, all twelve schools announced an agreement. In a joint statement, Oregon State President Jayathi Murthy and Washington State President Kirk Schulz said the two schools had been “forced to act swiftly to protect the future viability of the Pac-12,” and that “the future of the Pac-12 will be decided by the schools that are staying, not those that are leaving.”^[6] Under the final deal, each departing school had $5 million withheld from 2023-24 distributions and paid a $1.5 million supplemental contribution, for $65 million in total. The departing schools kept a vote on matters affecting all twelve that year but no claim to later revenue.^[7] The remaining schools also arranged a football scheduling alliance with the Mountain West and affiliate membership in the West Coast Conference for most other sports.^[7]

Rebuilding

The scheduling deal came with a price. In a later lawsuit, the Pac-12 said the Mountain West charged more than $14 million for Oregon State and Washington State to play six games each, and imposed a “poaching penalty” requiring fees if the Pac-12 recruited Mountain West members within a set period. The Pac-12 said it had accepted those terms when it “was desperate to schedule football games” and “had little leverage.”^[9] On September 12, 2024, the Pac-12 board voted unanimously to admit Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State and San Diego State, effective July 1, 2026.^[8] Twelve days later, the Pac-12 sued the Mountain West to have the poaching penalty declared invalid.^[9] Utah State, Gonzaga and Texas State later joined as well.^[11]

The poaching clause in court

The court record shows what the two remaining schools had signed. According to the September 2025 order, the December 2023 scheduling agreement required the Pac-12 to pay the Mountain West a one-time fee of $2 million for “scheduling and related administrative services” and more than $12 million in “participation fees.”^[12] The agreement also contemplated a “Definitive Transaction”: the Pac-12 could invite all Mountain West members to join it. Section 7.01 imposed “liquidated damages in the form of a termination fee” if the Pac-12 instead invited only some of them. The clause gave its rationale: the Pac-12 would receive the Mountain West’s “valuable Confidential Information” and “unique access” to its members, and selective recruiting would cause “unique economic damages and losses which would be impracticable or extremely difficult to quantify.” A separate $5.5 million fee applied if a Pac-12 school left for a conference other than the Mountain West or a Power Five league.^[12]

When five Mountain West schools agreed to join the Pac-12, the Mountain West demanded “tens of millions of dollars” in fees. The Pac-12 sought a declaration that the clause violated the Sherman Act, California’s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law, and was an unenforceable penalty under contract law.^[12] The Mountain West argued that the fees were “an ‘essential’ component” of an agreement that created “games that would not have otherwise existed,” and so should be judged under the more lenient rule of reason.^[12] On September 30, 2025, Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen denied the motion to dismiss in full, finding that the Pac-12 had adequately pleaded its antitrust, unfair-competition and penalty claims. She described the case as “a product of the rapidly-changing landscape of college athletics.”^[12] The ruling did not decide the merits. The dispute later ended in the settlement described below.^[10][12]

What the new league looks like

The rebuilt Pac-12 is a different kind of conference. It sponsors 10 women’s and nine men’s sports, and its first season includes the league’s first championship events in men’s and women’s soccer and women’s volleyball. It added 12 affiliate members in baseball, men’s soccer, women’s gymnastics, women’s swimming and wrestling.^[11] Its media partners are CBS Sports, USA Sports and CW Sports, and the league says every league-controlled football game will air on national linear television, ending with a championship game on CBS. Its own production company, Pac-12 Enterprises, is to produce more than 150 broadcasts for those partners. The men’s and women’s basketball tournaments return to Las Vegas, to be played on the same days in the same arena.^[11] The league’s launch release argued that, measured over the five seasons since 2021, its members’ records would make it a “Top 5” football league “in a tier of its own” behind the four power conferences.^[11]

Aftermath

On July 1, 2026, the new Pac-12 officially launched with nine full members (Oregon State, Washington State, Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, Gonzaga, San Diego State, Texas State and Utah State), plus affiliate members in several Olympic sports and media deals with CBS, USA Sports and CW Sports.^[11] The disputes with the Mountain West ended in settlements. The Pac-12 and Mountain West reached an agreement over the poaching fees, with financial terms not publicly disclosed. The five schools leaving the Mountain West agreed to pay it $49 million, roughly half of what the Mountain West had sought, under a deal signed at the end of July 2026 that included a non-disparagement clause.^[10]

The core dilemma

When a shared institution can no longer meet its members’ financial ambitions, what do departing members owe to those they leave behind, and who should control what remains? Should the remaining members be able to use that control and the courts to secure the institution’s future, even if it means deals that disadvantage others?

Competing values

• Loyalty vs. institutional self-interest: Long partnerships and rivalries versus each university’s duty to its own athletes and finances.
• Procedural fairness vs. protecting the future: Equal votes for all current members versus preventing departing members from deciding the fate of what they leave.
• Market freedom vs. stability: Schools may move to better deals; constant realignment destabilizes everyone else.
• Leverage vs. fair dealing: The Mountain West used its position to extract terms; the Pac-12 later challenged them as unlawful.

Strongest arguments

For the departing schools: Universities owe their first duty to their own students, athletes and finances. The media market rewarded larger conferences, and no school could afford to be left behind once others moved. They kept their commitments through 2023-24 and paid substantial sums in the settlement.^[1][7]

For Oregon State and Washington State: Schools that are leaving have a conflict of interest in deciding the future of what they leave, and the bylaws contemplated loss of voting rights. Without control of the conference’s assets and name, the two would have had no foundation to rebuild on, and the courts agreed they were likely to succeed.^[3][6]

Applying the frameworks

Justice & fairness (Rawls)

Behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing whether you would be a school with a big media market or one in a small town, you might want rules that protect members left behind when others leave, along with a fair division of shared revenue and assets. The dispute over 2023-24 distributions and future revenue is a question of distributive justice.

Utilitarian

A utilitarian would weigh the gains from the moves, such as more media money, bigger stages and possibly more resources for athletes, against the costs: longer travel for athletes in all sports, lost rivalries, years of uncertainty and legal fees across three conferences. Whether realignment produced a net benefit depends on how widely those gains and costs were shared.

Care ethics

Care ethics directs attention to relationships and the vulnerable. It would ask what the departing schools owed partners with whom they had shared a conference for generations, and how athletes, especially those in Olympic sports facing cross-country travel or uncertain futures, were considered in decisions driven largely by football revenue.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue: A conference breakup raises questions of loyalty, control of shared assets and fair division of revenue.
2. Gather facts: The bylaws’ withdrawal terms, media offers, financial projections, effects on athletes and the options for the remaining schools.
3. Test options: Stay together on a weaker deal; leave individually; negotiate an orderly dissolution; litigate over control; rebuild with new members.
4. Check codes and law: The conference constitution and bylaws, contract law, court rulings and antitrust law (as raised in the poaching-penalty dispute).
5. Decide and document: Each institution should record how it weighed obligations to partners, athletes and its own finances.
6. Communicate and follow up: Inform athletes and communities early, honor commitments for the remaining term, and settle disputes fairly.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: Ten schools left; Oregon State and Washington State won control through a preliminary injunction and the Washington Supreme Court’s denial of review; a $65 million settlement followed; the rebuilt nine-member Pac-12 launched July 1, 2026; the Mountain West disputes were settled.^{[1][2][7][10][11]}
• Contested: whether the Apple deal could have held the league together; whether departing schools acted fairly; whether the poaching penalty was lawful (it was settled, not decided); whether realignment served athletes.

Why this case matters

The Pac-12’s collapse shows how media economics can overwhelm long-standing institutional relationships, and how governance documents written for stable times can fail in a crisis. The rebuild shows how weaker parties can be pushed into hard bargains, and how quickly the newly strong can become the poachers. Students can ask what loyalty means between institutions, and whether athletes’ interests drove any of it.

Key terms

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Distributive justice

Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.

Commercialization

The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.

Conflict of interest

A situation where a person’s private interest could improperly influence a decision they make in an official role.

Institutional accountability

Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Trust

The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Did the departing schools owe anything to Oregon State and Washington State beyond what the bylaws required?
2. Should schools that have announced they are leaving keep voting rights on the conference's future?
3. Was the Mountain West's 'poaching penalty' a fair price for helping the Pac-12, or an anticompetitive restraint?
4. How should realignment decisions weigh revenue against travel, rivalries and athletes in non-revenue sports?
5. What, if anything, would have kept the Pac-12 together?

Sources

1. Washington State University v. Pac-12 Conference, No. 102562-9, Ruling Granting Emergency Motion for Stay (Nov. 28, 2023) — Supreme Court of Washington
2. Washington State University v. Pac-12 Conference, No. 102562-9, Order (Dec. 15, 2023) — Supreme Court of Washington
3. Oregon State, Washington State will run the Pac-12 board of directors as they win a preliminary injunction — The Spokesman-Review
4. The Atlantic Coast Conference Welcomes the University of California, Berkeley, Southern Methodist University and Stanford University as New Members — Atlantic Coast Conference
5. Pac-12 had 'great offer from Apple,' ASU's Michael Crow says — Arizona Sports
6. OSU and WSU joint statement regarding the agreement in principle recently announced by all 12 Pac-12 Conference universities — Washington State University
7. $65 million Pac-12 settlement finalized — FOX 13 Seattle
8. Ushering in a new era, the Pac-12 Conference strengthens its legacy by welcoming four respected academic and athletic universities — Pac-12 Conference
9. The Pac-12 Conference v. The Mountain West Conference, Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (Sept. 24, 2024) — U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (via Courthouse News)
10. Mountain West, 5 Departing Schools Agree to $49M Settlement — Sportico
11. The new Pac-12 Conference officially launches with the addition of seven full-time members — Pac-12 Conference
12. The Pac-12 Conference v. Mountain West Conference, No. 24-cv-06685-SVK, Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2025) — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (via CourtListener)