College sports in America has always been more than just a game. It’s a cultural institution, a business, and for many universities, a lifeline for funding. Football stadiums filled with tens of thousands, March Madness upsets that capture national attention, and the bright lights of NIL deals have transformed the landscape. But beneath the excitement lies a complex system that, according to some, may not be sustainable in the long run. One prominent voice in this debate is Cody Campbell, the billionaire chairman of the Texas Tech board of regents and arguably the university’s No. 1 superfan. Campbell has a vision for the future of college athletics that combines financial pragmatism with a desire to preserve the diversity and accessibility of sports programs.
Campbell’s involvement with Texas Tech athletics is well-known. Having grown up in Canyon, Texas, he played as an all-conference offensive lineman for the Red Raiders in the early 2000s before spending a year with the Indianapolis Colts. His post-football career has been defined by strategic business moves in real estate and oil, including the sale of four iterations of his company, Double Eagle Energy, which reportedly brought in around $13 billion. This financial acumen has translated into significant contributions to Texas Tech athletics: $25 million toward rebuilding the football stadium and more than $60 million in NIL payments through The Matador Club since 2022.
Because he is a billionaire and deeply invested in Texas Tech, Campbell could simply continue funding programs and letting events unfold. Yet, he has chosen a different path. “For Texas Tech, the best thing that could happen is the whole thing continues to be chaotic,” he said, highlighting his belief that simply throwing money at problems is not a sustainable solution. Instead, Campbell is interested in reshaping the broader system that governs college sports.
The Problem: Professionalized Costs, Amateur Revenue
Campbell has repeatedly pointed to a fundamental contradiction in college athletics. “We have professionalized the cost side of college sports,” he said. “But we’re still running this amateur revenue-generation program.” His point is straightforward: the cost of running a modern athletic program—salaries, facilities, recruitment, coaching—is closer to a professional enterprise than what a traditional college model can support. Yet, the revenue structures, particularly regarding media rights and conference organization, remain limited and fragmented.
In practice, this means that while football and men’s basketball can generate substantial revenue, other sports—women’s programs, Olympic sports, and smaller teams—often struggle to survive. Campbell sees this imbalance as one of the central challenges for college sports, arguing that without reform, the system risks losing entire programs.
A Radical Proposal: A New Governing Entity
At the core of Campbell’s vision is the creation of a new governing body to oversee college sports, one designed with the primary goal of maximizing revenue. Unlike the NCAA, which traditionally has regulated eligibility, rules, and compliance, Campbell’s entity would focus on commercial decision-making. He suggests it would not rely on a single commissioner but rather a group of leaders, each responsible for individual sports and their media rights.
This idea is not without controversy. SEC commissioner Greg Sankey has argued that Campbell’s proposals “reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the realities of college athletics.” Campbell, however, counters with his professional experience. “I would say, ‘How many private equity deals have you done?’ I’ve done a dozen or more. ‘How many times have you issued a public bond or financed a multimillion-dollar project?’ I’ve done it quite a lot. Did you actually play major college football?” His point is not to dismiss the expertise of athletic administrators but to highlight a different skill set: one focused on financial structuring, investment, and media optimization.
Media Rights: The $7 Billion Opportunity
One of the most tangible components of Campbell’s plan involves the restructuring of television and media rights. Under current law, particularly the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, college conferences cannot pool their TV rights in the same way professional leagues do. Campbell believes that revisiting these rules could unlock an estimated $7 billion per year in additional revenue.
Rather than advocating for a simple tear-up of existing deals, Campbell envisions a more measured approach, requiring congressional involvement to create a governance system capable of overseeing complex commercial arrangements. By optimizing TV contracts, he argues, schools could secure more stable funding for all sports, not just football and basketball. This funding, in turn, could help sustain programs historically at risk of budget cuts.
Interestingly, this approach finds potential bipartisan support. While Campbell is a Republican and aligns with figures like former President Donald Trump—who signed an executive order aimed at “Saving College Sports”—he also notes that legislative proposals on the media rights front have come from Democrats, such as Sen. Maria Cantwell’s initiative to rewrite parts of the 1961 law. “I know he’s supportive in general of two things,” Cantwell said, referencing Campbell: making sure the top conferences don’t monopolize revenue and ensuring resources are more evenly distributed across schools.
Private Equity: A Bridge, Not a Solution
Campbell also sees a role for private investment in college athletics, noting recent deals in the Big Ten, Big 12, and University of Utah. However, he frames these arrangements as temporary measures. “It’s basically just a payday loan, the way these things are being structured,” he said. “They don’t really solve the fundamental problem.” According to Campbell, private money can help universities navigate current financial pressures, but sustainable, systemic reform is necessary for long-term stability.
This perspective reflects a broader trend in American sports: the tension between short-term cash infusions and structural reform. While private equity can provide immediate relief, it cannot, by itself, address the uneven distribution of revenue or the governance challenges inherent in collegiate athletics. Campbell’s solution is to combine capital efficiency with institutional reform—a model more akin to professional leagues than traditional university oversight.
Beyond Football: Preserving Women’s and Olympic Sports
A recurring theme in Campbell’s discussions is the preservation of smaller sports programs. Football and basketball often dominate resources, leaving other sports vulnerable. Campbell sees a potential solution in the revenue from optimized TV deals. His polling indicates that over 85% of Americans want to see women’s and Olympic sports preserved—a rare area of consensus in today’s polarized environment. “And 85% of Americans don’t agree on anything,” he said, underscoring both the popularity and urgency of protecting these programs.
By framing the issue around broader financial sustainability, Campbell positions his plan as not just a boost for major programs but a safety net for sports that might otherwise vanish. This approach emphasizes a holistic view of college athletics: one where success is measured not only in championships but also in the preservation of opportunity and diversity in sports.
Criticism and Skepticism
Despite his vision and financial expertise, Campbell’s ideas have faced skepticism. Critics question whether commercializing college sports further will undermine the student-athlete experience or create new inequalities. SEC commissioner Sankey’s earlier comment captures this concern: the realities of college athletics, including compliance, recruiting, and student welfare, may not align neatly with a business-first approach.
Campbell counters by emphasizing that increased revenue does not necessarily reduce the power of existing administrators. Instead, he argues, it strengthens programs and provides more resources for everyone involved. “By putting more money in their pockets, everyone will be stronger,” he said. This perspective reframes reform not as a zero-sum power struggle but as a collaborative effort to modernize a system that has grown increasingly complex.
Congress, the NCAA, and the Road Ahead
Campbell is candid about the role of Congress. He acknowledges that lawmakers often move slowly and may not prioritize sports. However, he sees legislation like the SCORE Act as a potential starting point, even if he disagrees with its specifics. “I don’t think that many people who’ve been following sports for an amount of time think the NCAA is the right entity to be given a huge amount of additional power to override state law and be exempt from any kind of lawsuits,” he said.
In other words, Campbell is advocating for a carefully designed governance structure: one that has enough authority to make meaningful commercial decisions but also preserves fairness, protects smaller programs, and maintains public trust. The challenge, of course, is translating this vision into actionable policy—an endeavor that will likely take years of negotiation and debate.
A Pragmatic Vision
What sets Campbell apart from many boosters is his emphasis on experience and systems thinking over pure financial largesse. While his contributions to Texas Tech are substantial, his broader goal is the sustainability of college sports as a whole. He frames the conversation around three core principles:
Financial Sustainability: Recognizing that the cost of modern college athletics requires innovative revenue structures.
Preservation of Opportunities: Ensuring that smaller programs, particularly women’s and Olympic sports, are protected and funded.
Governance Reform: Advocating for a professionalized, transparent system capable of making commercial decisions while safeguarding fairness.
It’s a vision that acknowledges the realities of today’s sports landscape without losing sight of the traditions and opportunities that make college athletics special.
Conclusion
Cody Campbell’s vision for college sports is ambitious, pragmatic, and, in many ways, provocative. It challenges the status quo, questions existing governance structures, and seeks to balance the commercial realities of modern athletics with the preservation of smaller sports programs. While critics may view his proposals as too business-oriented or radical, the underlying problem he highlights is real: the current system is expensive, fragmented, and potentially unsustainable.
By proposing a new governance model, restructuring media rights, and considering private investment as a bridge to reform, Campbell is contributing to a national conversation that will likely shape the next decade of college athletics. His experience as a former player, billionaire investor, and active booster positions him uniquely at the intersection of sports and business—a vantage point from which he can offer both critique and concrete solutions.
Ultimately, the future of college sports may depend on finding a balance between tradition and modernization, amateur ideals and professional realities. Whether Congress, the NCAA, or new entities like the one Campbell proposes will rise to the challenge remains to be seen. What is clear is that voices like his—rooted in experience, investment, and passion for the game—are already shaping how we think about the next era of American athletics.
.png)
