There is absolutely nothing the Regents can do to force UCLA to pay Cal. The logical consequences that would flow from such line of reasoning would be absurd. UCLA’s athletic department has no legal obligations or contracts with Cal. Conference membership is merely a scheduling arrangement that ties a member school’s media rights for a specified period of years to the conference in exchange for an agreed upon allocation of revenue sharing. That’s it. This is precisely why the UC bylaws explicitly without any ambiguity provide complete autonomy to campus athletic departments to enter into contractual agreements with the exception of coaching contracts. UCLA signed a grant of rights that expires in 2024 tying its media revenue to the Pac-12. Cal and the Board of Regents have always been aware of this. They’ve always known that UCLA was not committing its share of media rights to the conference beyond 2024. Thus, any financial ramifications that Cal took on beyond 2024 they did so fully knowingly accepting the risk that they may not benefit from UCLA’s media rights revenue. We actually know exactly what the UC regents policy concerning changing conferences is. We know, not only because it’s written into the UC bylaws but because it’s happened many times throughout history of the UC system where schools have left conferences with other UC members. Never has any school gone to the Board of Regents and asked for permission to do so. To make it up on the fly now would be nonsensical.
Moreover, on a more practical note, the campuses are not just different entities but they are competitors with each other in many respects, none more so than when it comes to the business of intercollegiate athletics. This argument that UCLA should pay Cal because Cal cannot benefit from UCLA’s media rights is so ridiculous it could even be extended to games between the schools. Each time UCLA beats Berkeley on the court or in the field, UCLA could be said to be gaining monetary value at the expense of Berkeley.
Furthermore, as the article here mentions, UC Berkeley has already paid over $200 million to its athletic department? I have no idea if that’s true but if so then that means Berkeley’s athletic department benefits from a lot of taxpayer money in a way that UCLA never has even though it currently faces $100 million debt of its own. UCLA’s athletic department only receives $3 million annually from UCLA’s general fund. It’s one of the lowest in power 5 athletics. In other words, if the Regents sought to go after that little funding, it would have to balance that against the $200 + million that Berkeley’s athletic department apparently receives from the state. If anything, by the same logic it seems like Berkeley should be the one paying UCLA, not the other way around. Btw, if this is true then it 100% clears the way for UCLA to go the Big Ten without subsidizing Berkeley a penny. Actually, it would make a lot more sense now why they left.
Most importantly, even if the Regents legally could go after UCLA’s Big Ten revenue (they can’t) and they actually dare to handicap UCLA’s ability to succeed in the Big Ten by forcing them to pay welfare to Berkeley, it would be such an insignificant sum that it would hardly make any difference to Berkeley. I’ll explain why. Prior to UCLA and USC leaving for the Big Ten, the Pac-12 projected TV revenue was set at $42 million per school in 2025. In the aftermath of their departure, the projected revenue per Pac-12 school is $30 million. That loss would amount to $12 million divided by UCLA’s portion of the damage (in actuality, USC is the more valuable commodity so it would be even less) that comes out to $6 million annually. That is the absolute maximum the Regents could redistribute from UCLA to its less fortunate sibling.
Last note, whenever you’re demanding what is essentially welfare payments from a sibling institution, it’s safe to assume you’re no longer the “flagship” institution. I do notice this foolish arrogance from Berkeley people thinking they have special rights because they think they are the “flagship” school. Even if they were the “flagship” school it has no legal bearing on how the Regents deal with the schools (they could even be sued for such illegitimate motives). So in case any Berkeley people are confused, I will help clarify: UC Berkeley does not own UCLA and UCLA is not Berkeley’s slave or colony. Berkeley has ZERO legal rights to UCLA’s media revenue. I feel like a lot Berkeley people misunderstand this stuff and think they own UCLA. I feel like it’s the source of this “pay us money” demand.
The state/regents fund educational programs (by paying for faculty and staff), capital expansion/building maintenance, and a small amount for research. No way the Regents threaten to withhold educational dollars to the Southern Branch (which are based on student headcount), but could put a hold on CapEx approvals.
This stuff is getting so tiring! And the departures are still two years off! All of the money-grabbing has to stop some time, doesn't it? IMHO I don't think it's in Cal's best interest to pursue becoming one of the semi-pro teams; it's just not who we are (e.g., Bama, SC, OSU, etc.). Besides looking at the revenue side, how about the expense side? For example, MW teams have survived on $3M annual TV payouts. FCS teams even less. Why don't the uninvited BCS schools intentionally decide to pull out and create a new level of college football with lower caps on expenses for coaches' salaries, scholarships, etc., so we can all live within our means? Say $20M/year so that we create a new level playing field and get rid of the arms race. That way, the PAC12 could live within and be content with its budget.
Short answer to the lead question: No. USC is the driving force in this; UCLA is just along for the ride. And no Cal enthusiasts feeling left behind have any leverage in Heritage Hall.
There is absolutely nothing the Regents can do to force UCLA to pay Cal. The logical consequences that would flow from such line of reasoning would be absurd. UCLA’s athletic department has no legal obligations or contracts with Cal. Conference membership is merely a scheduling arrangement that ties a member school’s media rights for a specified period of years to the conference in exchange for an agreed upon allocation of revenue sharing. That’s it. This is precisely why the UC bylaws explicitly without any ambiguity provide complete autonomy to campus athletic departments to enter into contractual agreements with the exception of coaching contracts. UCLA signed a grant of rights that expires in 2024 tying its media revenue to the Pac-12. Cal and the Board of Regents have always been aware of this. They’ve always known that UCLA was not committing its share of media rights to the conference beyond 2024. Thus, any financial ramifications that Cal took on beyond 2024 they did so fully knowingly accepting the risk that they may not benefit from UCLA’s media rights revenue. We actually know exactly what the UC regents policy concerning changing conferences is. We know, not only because it’s written into the UC bylaws but because it’s happened many times throughout history of the UC system where schools have left conferences with other UC members. Never has any school gone to the Board of Regents and asked for permission to do so. To make it up on the fly now would be nonsensical.
Moreover, on a more practical note, the campuses are not just different entities but they are competitors with each other in many respects, none more so than when it comes to the business of intercollegiate athletics. This argument that UCLA should pay Cal because Cal cannot benefit from UCLA’s media rights is so ridiculous it could even be extended to games between the schools. Each time UCLA beats Berkeley on the court or in the field, UCLA could be said to be gaining monetary value at the expense of Berkeley.
Furthermore, as the article here mentions, UC Berkeley has already paid over $200 million to its athletic department? I have no idea if that’s true but if so then that means Berkeley’s athletic department benefits from a lot of taxpayer money in a way that UCLA never has even though it currently faces $100 million debt of its own. UCLA’s athletic department only receives $3 million annually from UCLA’s general fund. It’s one of the lowest in power 5 athletics. In other words, if the Regents sought to go after that little funding, it would have to balance that against the $200 + million that Berkeley’s athletic department apparently receives from the state. If anything, by the same logic it seems like Berkeley should be the one paying UCLA, not the other way around. Btw, if this is true then it 100% clears the way for UCLA to go the Big Ten without subsidizing Berkeley a penny. Actually, it would make a lot more sense now why they left.
Most importantly, even if the Regents legally could go after UCLA’s Big Ten revenue (they can’t) and they actually dare to handicap UCLA’s ability to succeed in the Big Ten by forcing them to pay welfare to Berkeley, it would be such an insignificant sum that it would hardly make any difference to Berkeley. I’ll explain why. Prior to UCLA and USC leaving for the Big Ten, the Pac-12 projected TV revenue was set at $42 million per school in 2025. In the aftermath of their departure, the projected revenue per Pac-12 school is $30 million. That loss would amount to $12 million divided by UCLA’s portion of the damage (in actuality, USC is the more valuable commodity so it would be even less) that comes out to $6 million annually. That is the absolute maximum the Regents could redistribute from UCLA to its less fortunate sibling.
Last note, whenever you’re demanding what is essentially welfare payments from a sibling institution, it’s safe to assume you’re no longer the “flagship” institution. I do notice this foolish arrogance from Berkeley people thinking they have special rights because they think they are the “flagship” school. Even if they were the “flagship” school it has no legal bearing on how the Regents deal with the schools (they could even be sued for such illegitimate motives). So in case any Berkeley people are confused, I will help clarify: UC Berkeley does not own UCLA and UCLA is not Berkeley’s slave or colony. Berkeley has ZERO legal rights to UCLA’s media revenue. I feel like a lot Berkeley people misunderstand this stuff and think they own UCLA. I feel like it’s the source of this “pay us money” demand.
The state/regents fund educational programs (by paying for faculty and staff), capital expansion/building maintenance, and a small amount for research. No way the Regents threaten to withhold educational dollars to the Southern Branch (which are based on student headcount), but could put a hold on CapEx approvals.
This stuff is getting so tiring! And the departures are still two years off! All of the money-grabbing has to stop some time, doesn't it? IMHO I don't think it's in Cal's best interest to pursue becoming one of the semi-pro teams; it's just not who we are (e.g., Bama, SC, OSU, etc.). Besides looking at the revenue side, how about the expense side? For example, MW teams have survived on $3M annual TV payouts. FCS teams even less. Why don't the uninvited BCS schools intentionally decide to pull out and create a new level of college football with lower caps on expenses for coaches' salaries, scholarships, etc., so we can all live within our means? Say $20M/year so that we create a new level playing field and get rid of the arms race. That way, the PAC12 could live within and be content with its budget.
Short answer to the lead question: No. USC is the driving force in this; UCLA is just along for the ride. And no Cal enthusiasts feeling left behind have any leverage in Heritage Hall.