There’s too much we don’t know about college athletes’ growing NIL deals | Opinion

When college football gets underway later this month, the players will be identifiable by their numbers, but these days a key second number will be hidden – how much some players are being paid.

The Supreme Court’s 2021 antitrust decision regarding college sports and the NCAA’s subsequent lifting of prohibitions on compensation for players through endorsements has allowed players to profit from the commercial use of their name, image of likeness (NIL).

Many fans welcome the change as giving at least some players a long overdue share of the multibillion-dollar business their efforts and talents make possible, particularly in football and men’s college basketball. But the flow of money has also raised thorny questions about the public’s right to know who is paying players and how much.

An academic paper published in the Temple Law Review argues that NIL deals should be transparent at public universities. The paper’s co-authors are Frank LoMonte, a lawyer for CNN and former director of the University of Florida’s Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, and Rachel Jones, a student at the University of North Carolina School of Law.

LoMonte and Jones say that restricting information about NIL deals creates opportunities to exploit athletes and frees athletic departments to unfairly control players’ endorsement opportunities. They write: “Public scrutiny can serve as a check on unfair or exploitative practices by corporate sponsors or censorious abuse of veto power by colleges.”

The authors add that disclosure protects the integrity of college sports. Noting that the NCAA until recently penalized athletes for accepting minor gifts, the NCAA and its member institutions “cannot defensibly assert that competition is unaffected by contracts running up to $2 million for a single endorsement deal.”

Most college athletic departments would prefer that NIL contracts remain private. They deny freedom of information requests about athletes’ NIL contracts by citing the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a vague law that colleges routinely use to shut the door on inquiries about athletes. A spokesperson for UNC-Chapel Hill athletics said: “NIL agreements in the University’s possession, if any, are education records and not subject to disclosure as public records.”

Meanwhile, state legislators have pushed through legislation in at least six states declaring that NIL deals are not subject to state freedom of information laws. A bill now pending in the North Carolina General Assembly, Senate Bill 574, would exempt from public records law NIL contracts that have been submitted to public universities for compliance review.

Sometimes schools say they don’t about the contracts. A spokesperson for N.C. State athletics said: “Our student-athletes aren’t required to disclose the NIL deals to us per institutional policy.”

Despite the lack of details, it’s clear that a lot of money is going to highly sought-after recruits and star players. Websites that track NIL deals based on voluntary disclosures by athletes and companies show many athletes earning hundreds of thousands of dollars. One NIL tracking website rates UNC quarterback Drake Maye’s potential NIL value at $1.5 million, although the actual value of the Heisman Trophy candidate’s deals is not publicly known.

Part of the problem with shielding NIL deals from public disclosure involves the NIL concept itself. The NCAA allowed players to profit from endorsements more out of surrender than intent. The result is a Wild West environment where the money is surging, the rules are vague, oversight varies by school and state, and secrecy prevails.

Behind-the-scenes deals marred the integrity of college sports long before NIL contracts. Allowing public universities to keep outside payments to athletes private will only invite more skulduggery.

College football is about to take the field. Fans and the general public should be allowed to know who and what the players are playing for.

Associate opinion editor Ned Barnett can be reached at 919-404-7583, or nbarnett@ newsobserver.com