Brendan Sorsby broke most essential sports agreement, Utah governor gets involved
Jun 15, 2026, 12:59 PM | Updated: 1:12 pm
SALT LAKE CITY, UT - AUGUST 29: The Big 12 logo is seen on the field prior to the game between the Utah Utes and the Southern Utah Thunderbirds at Rice Eccles Stadium on August 29, 2024 in Salt Lake City, Utah. (Photo by Chris Gardner/Getty Images)
(Photo by Chris Gardner/Getty Images)
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah’s top state officials are now formally pushing the Big 12 to act against Texas Tech over the Brendan Sorsby gambling case.
In a June 15 letter addressed to Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark and Big 12 Board of Directors chairman Douglas Girod, Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and Gov. Spencer Cox urged the conference to use its own bylaws to sanction Texas Tech if the school continues supporting Sorsby’s effort to play this fall despite admitted sports-wagering misconduct.
This is for every athlete who competes with integrity.
Today, Attorney General Brown and I sent a letter to Big 12 leadership regarding the Conference’s authority to enforce its rules and preserve fair competition. pic.twitter.com/yWGJKobxC8
— Governor Cox (@GovCox) June 15, 2026
The letter frames the issue as far bigger than one quarterback, one school or one legal fight.
Sorsby wagered roughly $90,000 on sports over four years, including approximately 40 bets involving his own team, with the NCAA allegedly asserting that some bets involved opposing players “overachieving” against his school. The letter says the NCAA declared him permanently ineligible and argues that Texas Tech’s support of his court challenge shows a failure to appreciate the seriousness of the misconduct.
Brown and Cox argue that the Big 12 has independent authority under Bylaw 3.6 to discipline Texas Tech if a supermajority of the conference determines the school has acted in a way that is “materially adverse to the best interests of the Conference.” In their view, Texas Tech’s willingness to allow Sorsby to compete after his gambling-related NCAA ineligibility is exactly the kind of situation that bylaw is designed to address.
The letter also makes clear that Utah believes the Big 12 should not be intimidated by antitrust arguments raised by the Texas Attorney General.
“Texas Tech is engaging in conduct materially adverse to the best interests of the Conference as a whole,” Brown and Cox wrote. “The Conference’s authority to act is unimpaired, and it should act.”
Why Utah Is Getting Involved
Utah is not the first state to publicly back the Big 12 in this dispute.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond first offered support for the conference last week. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach followed with his own support Monday morning.
Now Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and Gov. Spencer Cox have added another voice, giving the Big 12 support from a third conference footprint state as it weighs how to respond to Texas Tech and the Brendan Sorsby situation.
Obviously, Utah is home to two Big 12 member institutions. Brown and Cox argue that what happens next matters to both schools, and to every athlete in the conference who has a right to compete in games protected by serious integrity standards.
The letter also highlights Utah’s strict public policy against gambling. Brown and Cox note that Utah is one of only two states with a comprehensive constitutional and statutory prohibition on gambling. Their argument is that this is not incidental. It reflects a broader belief that gambling can corrupt fair competition and erode public trust.
With Oklahoma, Kansas and now Utah all backing the Big 12’s authority, the conference is no longer standing alone in this fight. The Sorsby case has become a larger test of whether the Big 12 can enforce its own rules and protect competitive integrity in a sports landscape increasingly shaped by NIL money, legalized gambling and litigation.
RELATED: Utah AG, Gov. Cox back Big 12 in Texas Tech-Brendan Sorsby dispute
Why This Matters Beyond The Big 12
This case matters because it cuts to the foundation of all sports.
Every game depends on a basic agreement between players, coaches, schools, leagues, fans and television partners: the competition is real. The result may be unpredictable, painful or controversial, but the public has to believe the game itself is honest.
Busy day in the legal squabbles around Brendan Sorsby’s eligibility. Latest from @sportscenter with @mattbarrie. pic.twitter.com/qc9AS5TmaQ
— Pete Thamel (@PeteThamel) June 15, 2026
Sports betting has become more visible, more accessible and more deeply connected to the modern sports economy. Fans can wager from their phones. Betting lines are part of broadcasts, podcasts, pregame shows and social media conversation. That reality has created new revenue and fan engagement opportunities, but it has also raised the stakes for every league trying to protect competitive integrity.
The line that cannot be crossed is athletes wagering on games involving their own teams. Once that happens, trust begins to break down. Every missed tackle, dropped pass, late turnover, coaching decision or unusual substitution can become part of a larger suspicion. Even if nothing improper happens during the game itself, the perception problem is enormous.
And in sports, perception matters because trust is the product. Don’t think so? Utah Jazz fans will point to a fine levied against the organization of $500,000 because Lauri Markannen and Jaren Jackson Jr. sat in the 4th quarter of a game the Jazz won because it was deemed conduct detrimental to the league.
RELATED: Jazz Fined $500,000 For Resting Markkanen, Jackson Jr.
For college sports, the issue is even more complicated because athletes are now operating in a world with NIL money, transfer movement, revenue sharing, legal challenges and more outside influence than ever before. That does not mean athletes should be treated unfairly or denied basic rights. But it does mean conferences have to be serious about the rules that protect competition itself.
If the conference acts, it reinforces that gambling-related integrity rules are not optional and that member schools cannot simply legalize their way around shared standards. If it backs down, it risks creating a precedent where schools can challenge discipline, apply political pressure and weaken the conference’s ability to govern future cases.
That is why the support from Oklahoma, Kansas and now Utah is notable. This is no longer just an internal Big 12 dispute. It has become a public test of whether sports governing bodies can enforce integrity rules at a time when the legal and financial pressures around athletics are growing.
The Bottom Line
The Utah letter raises the stakes in the Sorsby case. This is no longer just a dispute between a player and the NCAA. It is now a conference governance issue, a gambling integrity issue and a broader sports issue.
The message to the Big 12 is clear: do not treat this as a narrow eligibility fight. Treat it as a test of whether the conference can protect honest competition.
For Utah and BYU, that matters because they are now part of the same competitive ecosystem as Texas Tech. If one Big 12 school is allowed to play an athlete whose gambling history involved his own team, Brown and Cox argue every other school is forced to compete under compromised terms.
But the larger point goes beyond one conference. Sports only work if people believe the games are clean. The money, the television contracts, the rivalries, the fan passion and the athlete opportunities all depend on the same thing.
The game has to be trusted.
The Big 12 is being asked to draw a line. The states of Utah, Kansas, and Oklahoma are supporting the conference in drawing it.
