Sign stealing in college football is not illegal under federal or state law. It can violate NCAA rules, and those violations can cost a program tens of millions of dollars and end coaching careers, but no criminal statute reaches the conduct and no civil lawsuit over it has succeeded. The consequences come from a private athletic organization, not a courtroom.
Most people searching this question are thinking about Michigan. Beginning in 2021, football analyst Connor Stalions organized a network of associates to attend games of future Michigan opponents in person and record the sideline signals coaches used to call plays. The operation spanned three seasons and at least 52 games involving 13 future opponents. When the NCAA investigated, it found that evidence had been destroyed or withheld. Stalions resigned during the investigation. No one was charged with a crime for any of it.
What the NCAA Actually Prohibits
The NCAA has no blanket rule against figuring out an opponent’s signals. Reading a quarterback’s hand signals from your own sideline, studying game film, or spotting a coach’s patterns on a television broadcast are all permitted. Decoding signals is treated as competitive strategy.
What the NCAA bans is the method Michigan used. Bylaw 11.6.1 prohibits off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents during the same season. The rule was adopted in 1994 as a cost-saving measure meant to level the field for programs that couldn’t afford to send scouts to multiple games each week. Michigan argued at its hearing that because the rule’s rationale was financial rather than competitive, its violations shouldn’t be treated as cheating. The NCAA’s infractions panel rejected that argument, concluding that the rule’s origins don’t erase the competitive advantage gained by breaking it.1NCAA. University of Michigan Public Infractions Decision
A separate NCAA rule prohibits using electronic equipment to record an opponent’s signals during a game. Michigan’s case focused on Bylaw 11.6.1 because the scheme relied on sending people to games in person, but the electronic recording ban is a second line of restriction beyond showing up to scout.
Why No Criminal Statute Fits
Three federal laws tend to come up when people ask whether sign stealing could be prosecuted. None of them apply.
Federal Wiretapping Law
The federal wiretap statute makes it a crime to intentionally intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 2511 – Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications Prohibited The operative word is “intercept,” which refers to capturing private communications in transit. Sideline hand signals are displayed openly in front of tens of thousands of spectators and television cameras. There is nothing private being intercepted. A coach waving his arms on a sideline is not having a confidential conversation.
Computer Fraud
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act prohibits accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access to obtain information or commit fraud.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 1030 – Fraud and Related Activity in Connection With Computers Every provision requires unauthorized access to a computer system. Watching a coach signal plays from a stadium seat or a television broadcast involves no computer at all.
Theft of Trade Secrets
Federal trade secret law targets the theft of information whose owner has taken reasonable steps to keep it confidential and which derives economic value from not being publicly known.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 1832 – Theft of Trade Secrets Football signals fail on every front. Coaches display them in front of a live audience. They are visible on broadcast television. Teams rotate signals precisely because they know opponents can see them. Information openly displayed to 100,000 people is not a trade secret.
Intent
Beyond the poor statutory fit, criminal prosecution would require proving intent to defraud or cause economic injury. Sign stealing is done for a competitive advantage within a game. No federal or state prosecutor has ever charged anyone for football sign stealing, and the Michigan case produced no criminal referrals for the conduct.
Civil Lawsuits Have Failed
Private lawsuits over sign stealing have been tried and rejected. In Olson v. Major League Baseball, fantasy sports contestants sued the Houston Astros, the Boston Red Sox, and MLB, arguing that electronic sign-stealing schemes corrupted player statistics and cheated fantasy league participants. They brought claims for fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment, and consumer protection violations.5Justia Law. Olson v. Major League Baseball, No. 20-1831 (2d Cir. 2022)
The Second Circuit dismissed every claim. The court held that no reasonable consumer of sports competitions could plausibly claim they relied on an assumption that the sport was free from intentional rule violations. The court declined to impose a broad duty on sports organizations to disclose everything that could affect on-field performance, writing: “When it comes to sports competitions, the one thing that a spectator or consumer can expect is the unexpected.”5Justia Law. Olson v. Major League Baseball, No. 20-1831 (2d Cir. 2022)
The case involved baseball rather than football, but the principles carry over. If a professional scheme using electronic surveillance didn’t create civil liability, a college scouting operation almost certainly won’t either.
Where the Real Consequences Live
The Michigan outcome shows what penalties for sign stealing actually look like, and why they land in the institutional column rather than the legal one. The NCAA’s August 2025 infractions decision imposed four years of probation, financial penalties estimated above $30 million, a 25% reduction in official football recruiting visits, and show-cause orders against four individuals, including a 10-year order for former head coach Jim Harbaugh and a two-year order plus a three-game suspension for current head coach Sherrone Moore.1NCAA. University of Michigan Public Infractions Decision Michigan has announced it will appeal.
These are serious penalties, but they are administrative. A show-cause order means any NCAA school that wants to hire the coach must justify why the person shouldn’t face additional restrictions. It is a career burden, not a legal one. No one involved faces jail time, criminal fines, or a criminal record from the NCAA process.
Why the Question Is Becoming Moot
College football has moved toward technology that makes traditional sign stealing far less useful. In April 2024, the NCAA approved in-helmet coach-to-player radio communication for FBS teams, with one offensive and one defensive player per team wearing a helmet equipped with a one-way radio marked by a green dot. Coaches transmit the play directly into the player’s ear instead of signaling it across a sideline. FCS programs gained access to the same technology in 2025.
Wristband play-calling systems add another layer. These devices display coded play calls on a small screen strapped to a player’s wrist, with the signal sent over encrypted channels that opponents can’t intercept by filming gestures or reading lips. Unlike helmet radios, which cut off 15 seconds before the snap, wristband systems can reach every player in the huddle and stay active until the ball is snapped. NCAA discussions have explored expanding wristband use across all divisions as soon as 2026.
The NCAA has also approved sideline tablets for in-game video review, which lets teams spot in real time whether their own signals have been compromised and adjust during the game.
None of this makes sign stealing impossible. It makes the payoff small. When a coach can whisper a play call through a radio, there is little left for a scout in the stands to decode. The Michigan scandal may turn out to be the last major sign-stealing case of its kind, not because the law changed, but because the technology made the enterprise pointless.