The Big Ten and Fox Sports are apparently going to war over control of a neutral-site college basketball game next season.
Last week, Duke University and Amazon announced a landmark deal that would see three Blue Devils men’s basketball games air exclusively on the company’s Prime Video streaming service. Two of these games — a matchup with UConn in Las Vegas and a tilt against Gonzaga in Detroit — fall outside established media rights contracts because they’re being played in markets outside the participating conferences’ established territories.
Advertisement
In other words, because Duke and Gonzaga are playing in Detroit and not, say, Charlotte, the game can be sold to Amazon without breaching prior broadcast agreements.
The third game, however, has been the subject of intense focus since last week’s announcement. Duke and Michigan are scheduled to play at Madison Square Garden on Dec. 21 as part of the three-game deal with Amazon. That game falls within territory claimed by both the ACC and Big Ten (thank you, Syracuse and Rutgers). Per initial reports, Duke resolved this predicament with ESPN, the ACC’s rights holder, agreeing to participate in other neutral-site non-conference games on the network in future seasons.
But here’s where it gets a bit confusing. The Big Ten and its rightsholder, Fox Sports, are now laying claim to the game on the basis of a prior agreement with ESPN and the ACC, under which the conferences and networks alternate broadcast rights to neutral-site games in shared territory. Two seasons ago, Fox aired a Duke-Illinois game from Madison Square Garden, which means last year, when Duke played Michigan in Washington, D.C., ESPN got rights to the game.
On account of this rotation, Fox believes it is next up to carry a neutral-site game between the Big Ten and ACC within both conferences’ shared territory.
Advertisement
One intellectual property lawyer thinks the claim is a farce.
David McKenzie, an IP lawyer, offered a compelling argument against the Big Ten’s claims in a viral post on X; though it should be noted that McKenzie is a Duke grad, so perhaps take that into account when reading the following.
Duke is going to stick it to the Big Ten. And, hey, Tony Petitti, you’re going to have to sue Duke in Greensboro to vindicate that fantasy theory of ownership. Good luck with that one in the Middle District of North Carolina. Bring snacks.
There is no copyright in a live sporting event itself. NBA v. Motorola settled this decades ago: the underlying athletic competition is not a “work of authorship” under § 102(a). What’s copyrightable is the broadcast: the fixed audiovisual production, with its directorial choices, camera angles, commentary, and graphics. So when the Big Ten says it “owns the broadcast rights” to a game that hasn’t been produced yet, by a producer it doesn’t control, in a venue it doesn’t lease, between two schools where only one is its member— that’s a contract claim dressed up in proprietary language. It is not a property right enforceable against the world.
This matters because the Big Ten’s only conceivable hook is the inter-conference agreement allegedly providing for alternating “shared territory” neutral-site games. That’s a contract between the Big Ten/Fox and the ACC/ESPN. Duke isn’t a party to it. Amazon certainly isn’t. Madison Square Garden isn’t. So whatever rights exist run between the conferences and their rights holders as opposed to against the world.
Reading between the lines, the actual contractual mechanism appears to be a reciprocity provision in the ACC-ESPN/Big Ten-Fox arrangements covering neutral-site games in metropolitan areas where both conferences have natural broadcast interest. The reported precedent — Duke-Illinois on Fox in DC, then Duke-Michigan to ESPN in DC as the “return” — suggests a genuine, course-of-dealing-supported alternation pattern.
But here’s where it gets shaky for the Big Ten:
First, “shared territory” is doing enormous work in this claim. New York is shared territory in some intuitive sense, but is every neutral-site game in New York automatically subject to alternation? What if Duke plays Wisconsin at MSG? Florida State plays Purdue at Barclays? The provision presumably has defined triggers, and we don’t know whether this specific game— structured as part of a school-driven, three-game streaming package rather than a conference-arranged neutral-site event—even falls within the contractual definition.
Second, the alternation theory assumes the prior DC game “counted” as ESPN’s turn. The reporting frames that as the Big Ten’s position, not as established fact. The ACC/ESPN may well dispute that characterization, particularly if the DC game was structured differently (e.g., as a Duke home game played off-campus, or under different licensing terms).
Third, and most importantly: the Big Ten’s deal is with Fox and the ACC’s rights holder. Fox doesn’t have a claim against Duke or Amazon. Fox has a claim against the Big Ten if the Big Ten fails to deliver, and the Big Ten has a claim against the ACC if the ACC breached. The remedy chain stops well short of enjoining the Amazon broadcast. Good luck with that.
There’s a lot to unpack there, but if McKenzie’s interpretation is right, it would seem that the Big Ten and Fox Sports have quite an uphill battle here.
The main issue, it seems, the Big Ten might run into is that Duke and Amazon are not party to the “shared territory” contract between the Big Ten/Fox Sports and the ACC/ESPN. If the Big Ten’s ultimate goal is to stop the Duke-Michigan game from airing on Prime Video and instead secure broadcast rights for that game, it’ll be difficult to obtain an injunction when Duke and Amazon are not parties to the contract the Big Ten is using to claim rights to the game.
Advertisement
Further, much of the Big Ten’s claim will hinge on the exact language of its contract with the ACC/ESPN. If the contract does not specify precisely how games will be allocated, and exactly which neutral-site games the alternation applies to, the Big Ten might find it difficult to develop a compelling case that the game is theirs.
Whether the Big Ten and Fox are actually pursuing legal remedies for the dispute is unclear. It is quite possible that the Big Ten and Fox are simply making a stink in hopes of extracting concessions out of the ACC and ESPN.
To be clear, this is just one lawyer’s opinion on social media, so we shouldn’t put a ton of stock in it. But if the Big Ten does decide to take the legal route, there seem to be a lot of question marks that would need to be addressed to achieve their desired result.
The post IP lawyer asserts Big Ten’s ownership claims over Duke-Michigan is ‘fantasy theory’ appeared first on Awful Announcing.
