Vanderbilt and Tennessee Football Programs Threatened With SEC Expulsion Due to Controversial Tennessee State Laws on NIL and Governance
The Southeastern Conference, home to some of the most storied college football programs in the nation, now finds itself embroiled in a legal and political standoff that could reshape the landscape of collegiate athletics in the South. At the center of the controversy are two of its own: the Vanderbilt Commodores and the University of Tennessee Volunteers. Both programs, long-standing members of the SEC, are now facing potential expulsion from the conference due to ongoing conflicts surrounding state-level legislation in Tennessee that some believe fundamentally undermines SEC governance and NCAA compliance—particularly in the realm of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights and institutional autonomy.
The core of the dispute lies in Tennessee’s aggressive legislative efforts to protect in-state universities from what lawmakers see as overreach by the NCAA and the SEC. While other states have sought to expand NIL rights and provide clarity for athletes, Tennessee’s laws go a step further. The state has passed legislation that restricts the SEC and NCAA from penalizing Tennessee-based programs for NIL activities that would otherwise violate conference or NCAA policies. Lawmakers claim these measures are necessary to protect student-athletes and the universities’ ability to remain competitive in an evolving market. But to the SEC, these laws represent a direct challenge to its authority and uniformity, which it views as critical to maintaining fairness and order among its 16 member schools.
Commissioner Greg Sankey has made no secret of his dissatisfaction. According to multiple sources familiar with internal SEC discussions, the conference has raised the possibility—albeit reluctantly—of voting to remove the University of Tennessee and Vanderbilt University from the league if a resolution cannot be reached. While expulsion would be an unprecedented move in modern college athletics, the seriousness of the threat speaks volumes about the divide between state politics and conference governance. The SEC maintains that allowing individual states to unilaterally disregard conference rules creates a dangerous precedent that could lead to a fragmented, unmanageable future for college sports.
The SEC operates on a foundation of shared governance, where decisions are made collaboratively among member institutions to ensure consistency in areas ranging from recruiting and compliance to media rights and scheduling. Tennessee’s NIL laws create a competitive imbalance, opponents argue, by allowing Volunteer State programs to engage in activities that other SEC schools cannot. In doing so, the state essentially arms its programs with advantages deemed impermissible elsewhere in the conference. For example, Tennessee law permits third-party collectives to directly coordinate with athletic departments on NIL deals, a practice prohibited under SEC guidelines.
This has placed schools like Alabama, Georgia, and LSU in a difficult position. If Tennessee-based programs are not held to the same standards, rival schools are either forced to demand similar exemptions from their states or accept a competitive disadvantage. That tension has grown more intense in recent months, particularly as high-profile recruits and transfers have reportedly chosen Tennessee schools due in part to the more favorable NIL landscape there. Some athletic directors within the SEC have privately expressed frustration that the conference has not yet acted, while others warn that rushing to punish Tennessee could spark lawsuits and further legislative backlash.
The University of Tennessee, a flagship institution with one of the most passionate fanbases in college football, has pushed back hard against the threat of expulsion. Chancellor Donde Plowman and Athletic Director Danny White have both defended the state’s NIL law as a reflection of Tennessee’s commitment to athlete empowerment and marketplace fairness. They argue that the NCAA’s slow response to the changing NIL climate has forced states to fill the vacuum, and that Tennessee’s approach simply codifies what many believe will soon become the national standard.
Vanderbilt, while traditionally quieter in athletic matters, has taken a more cautious tone but has not distanced itself from the state’s legal stance. University officials have expressed a desire to remain in good standing with the SEC while also supporting Tennessee law and student-athlete rights. Behind closed doors, however, Vanderbilt is understood to be deeply concerned about the implications of SEC expulsion—not only for football but for the academic and financial partnerships that come with conference membership.
This situation has drawn national attention, not just because of its potential to upend college football but because it underscores the broader instability caused by the current NIL environment. With no federal NIL law in place and the NCAA reluctant—or perhaps unable—to enforce uniform policies, states have begun passing their own rules, each slightly different from the next. The result is a patchwork of governance that leaves schools unsure of where the line between fair play and competitive manipulation really is.
Legal experts suggest that any attempt by the SEC to expel Tennessee or Vanderbilt would almost certainly trigger a court battle. Both schools are public institutions and receive significant funding from the state legislature, which has made clear it will back them in a dispute with the conference. Lawsuits could argue that expulsion would violate contractual obligations, state sovereignty, or even antitrust principles. Moreover, television contracts and media rights deals, which are the financial lifeblood of the SEC, could be imperiled if two member schools are removed. Broadcasters and sponsors might demand renegotiations, and other member schools could suffer financially from the upheaval.
Yet for all the legal and financial risks, some in the SEC believe that failing to act sends a more dangerous message—that member schools can pick and choose which conference rules they want to follow based on local politics. This, they say, would destroy the very foundation of conference unity and open the door to further fragmentation not just in the SEC but across all of college athletics.
Meanwhile, players caught in the middle of this standoff have expressed mixed feelings. Some athletes support Tennessee’s laws, praising the increased transparency and freedom to capitalize on their personal brands. Others worry that being associated with programs in legal limbo could hurt their exposure or future prospects. Recruits and their families are watching closely as well, trying to assess whether joining a Tennessee-based program could lead to complications down the road.
For fans, the situation is both surreal and maddening. The idea that two iconic SEC programs could be expelled over political and legal disputes is almost unthinkable. Knoxville and Nashville live and breathe SEC football, and the thought of Saturdays without the Vols or Commodores facing off against traditional rivals like Florida, Auburn, or Ole Miss feels like a betrayal of the sport’s history and spirit.
As the 2025 season approaches, pressure is mounting on all parties to find a compromise. One potential solution involves the SEC revising its own NIL policies to align more closely with Tennessee law, thereby removing the basis for conflict. But that would require other member schools to accept a looser regulatory framework, something many are reluctant to do without broader reforms at the national level. Alternatively, Tennessee lawmakers could amend their laws to provide more deference to conference authority, though that seems unlikely given the political capital invested in passing them.
There are also quiet whispers about a federal legislative intervention—some members of Congress have floated the idea of national NIL standards, and this high-profile dispute could give those efforts new momentum. For now, though, the fate of Tennessee and Vanderbilt in the SEC remains uncertain, a potent symbol of how quickly college football’s foundations can be shaken by the intersection of politics, money, and power.
What is clear is that the next few months could prove to be a defining moment in the future of the SEC and college sports more broadly. Whether the conference chooses unity or discipline, reform or retaliation, the ripple effects will be felt across locker rooms, boardrooms, and statehouses nationwide. The outcome of this high-stakes standoff will not only decide the fate of two proud programs but may well determine how college football governs itself in the years to come.
