Mountain West, Pac-12 argue over poaching fees in California court

A district court judge in San Jose, California, heard arguments on the Mountain West’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Pac-12, but did not make a ruling Tuesday.

Judge Susan van Keulen will consider the arguments made in her courtroom before rendering a decision at a later date. No timeline was presented for a ruling.

The Pac-12 sued the Mountain West in September 2024 over the Mountain West’s demand for $55 million in poaching fees after five schools departed for the Pac-12.

The case was on hold for several months as the sides engaged in mediation. Talks broke down, however, leading the case to proceed to court.

Tuesday’s hearing concerned the Mountain West’s motion to dismiss the case completely, which was filed in November 2024.

If the judge rules in favor of the Mountain West, the case could come to an end based on the wording of her decision. A ruling in favor of the Pac-12 would put the parties on course for a full trial.

“The Pac-12 Conference will continue to move forward with our legal action against the Mountain West Conference,” the Pac-12 said in a statement. “We appreciate the court’s consideration of the issues at today’s hearing and we will await its decision. We remain confident in the strength of our position and remain focused on advancing the academic excellence, athletic achievement, and tradition that have defined the Pac-12 for more than a century.”

A Mountain West spokesperson declined to comment.

The dispute

The exit and poaching fees the Mountain West is trying to collect are spelled out clearly in writing. The Pac-12’s federal antitrust suit claims those agreements are unenforceable for a variety of reasons.

The Mountain West asked the court in its motion to dismiss the case with prejudice and without leave to amend, claiming the Pac-12 has no antitrust standing and has failed to allege any harm to competition or itself.

The Mountain West’s position is built on the premise that the scheduling agreement signed between the two leagues in December 2023 — which first laid out the poaching fees — is what allowed the Pac-12 to stay viable. The Mountain West knew that could lead to the Pac-12 offering membership to some of its schools, so it protected itself by putting the fees in the contract.

The Pac-12, however, believes the poaching fees are unenforceable because they were inserted into a “wholly unrelated scheduling agreement” at a time the conference had “no leverage to reject the restriction.”

Essentially, the league is saying it signed the contract under pressure.

A response filed by the Pac-12 also called the poaching fees a “naked restraint on competition” because they are “exorbitant, duplicative, one-sided and exhaustive.”

The Mountain West said in court documents the Pac-12’s claim about restricting competition doesn’t hold up because schools agreed to go to the Pac-12 despite knowing the fees were in place.

The Pac-12 asked the court to give it the option to refile even if it does rule in the Mountain West’s favor.

The two conferences are also engaged in a separate legal dispute in Denver District Court over the $18 million per school the Mountain West claims it is owed in exit fees.

UNLV was promised a substantial percentage of any money collected in poaching and exit fees in exchange for remaining in the Mountain West.

Contact Adam Hill at ahill@reviewjournal.com. Follow @AdamHillLVRJ on X.