Big 12 Files Federal Lawsuit Against Texas Tech Over Sorsby Gambling Scandal; QB Announces Departure

The Big 12 Conference has filed a federal lawsuit against Texas Tech University and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, seeking court authorization to sanction the school for planning to field quarterback Brendan Sorsby — a player who admitted to placing approximately $90,000 in sports bets over his college career, including wagers on his own team. The lawsuit, filed Sunday in the Northern District of Texas in Dallas, marked an unprecedented moment in college sports: a major conference suing one of its own members to enforce its own bylaws. By Monday, Sorsby had announced his departure from the program, effectively ending the standoff — but not the broader debate it sparked.

Sorsby, 22, played at Indiana, Cincinnati, and Texas Tech over his college career, and he acknowledged placing thousands of bets totaling nearly $90,000 over that span. The most serious violation involved bets he placed on Indiana football while he was an active member of the Hoosiers’ roster. The NCAA permanently banned him from college athletics after the investigation concluded. A Texas state judge then issued a temporary injunction blocking the ban, ruling on contract law grounds and requiring Sorsby to sit out the first two games of the 2026 season while continuing addiction treatment.

Conference vs. State: An Unprecedented Legal Clash

Texas Tech announced it would welcome Sorsby back, prompting the Big 12 to move toward sanctions. Paxton’s office responded with a letter warning the conference that any attempt to disadvantage Texas Tech would violate antitrust law, and threatened legal action. Rather than stand down, the Big 12 filed a 47-page complaint in federal court, arguing that its First Amendment right to enforce its own governance bylaws cannot be overridden by state officials threatening legal retaliation.

The complaint named Paxton, Texas Tech University, the Texas Tech University System, Chancellor Brandon Creighton, President Lawrence Schovanec, and Athletic Director Kirby Hocutt as defendants. The conference sought a declaratory judgment confirming that potential sanctions — including financial penalties or a ban from the Big 12 Championship Game — would not violate antitrust law, and an injunction preventing Paxton and Texas Tech from interfering with conference governance.

Multiple other state attorneys general came out in support of the Big 12’s position, isolating Paxton’s stance. The conference argued in its complaint that the case involved one of the clearest principles in sports: athletes must not bet on the games they play in. “In an industry that rarely agrees on anything, there is finally an issue that everyone seems to agree on (other than TTU and the Attorney General): universities should not field players who have bet on their own team’s games in college athletics,” the Big 12 wrote.

Sorsby Exits Amid NFL Draft Deadline

The legal battle resolved itself abruptly when Sorsby announced Monday that he would leave Texas Tech and pursue the NFL supplemental draft. The supplemental draft deadline of June 22 created a hard timeline that made waiting out the legal proceedings impossible. Texas Tech’s Board of Regents Chair Cody Campbell confirmed the news, expressing support for Sorsby while acknowledging the practical reality of the deadline.

“Brendan and Texas Tech stand on very solid and legitimate legal ground, but he faces a June 22nd deadline to be eligible to enter the NFL’s supplemental draft,” Campbell said. “There is no practical way to resolve all the various pending legal disputes and ensure his eligibility prior to this date.”

Betting Integrity in College Sports Under a Microscope

The Sorsby case has become the most prominent test of how college sports institutions handle the intersection of gambling addiction, integrity enforcement, and athlete rights in an era of rapidly expanding legal sports betting. Sports betting is now legal in 39 states, and legal sportsbooks are widely marketed to college-aged consumers, creating inevitable tension with NCAA and conference rules prohibiting athlete participation in wagering markets.

The episode also highlights the complexity of treating gambling disorder as a medical condition while maintaining integrity standards. Sorsby’s legal team argued his gambling disorder qualified as a disability deserving protection rather than punishment — an argument that won in a Texas state court but found little sympathy among conference officials, other universities, or most outside observers.

Sportsbooks including those available through the DraftKings Promo Code maintain strict policies prohibiting athletes and team personnel from wagering on sports in which they are involved. As FanDuel and other licensed operators continue to market aggressively to sports fans, the Sorsby case will likely accelerate conversations among regulators and conferences about how to better enforce those prohibitions and educate college athletes about the legal and professional consequences of gambling violations.