Why It Matters
The lawsuit tests the limits of public transparency for state universities as they distribute millions in name, image, and likeness (NIL) funds to student-athletes. Taxpayers and oversight groups argue that because these institutions rely on public support, the distribution of those funds must be open to scrutiny.
What Happened
CalMatters filed a lawsuit against UC Berkeley in Alameda County Superior Court last week, seeking financial data on how much student-athletes earn from NIL deals. This marks the organization’s second open records lawsuit against a University of California campus in two months, following a nearly identical suit filed against UCLA in August.
Both campuses have refused to divulge athlete payment amounts since a national legal settlement last year permitted direct compensation for student-athletes. The complaint alleges that UC Berkeley has failed to produce records showing how public funds are distributed and argues that taxpayers are entitled to know player names and the teams they represent.
CalMatters spent almost a year seeking data from UC Berkeley via California Public Records Act requests before turning to litigation. While several campuses offered limited data, others produced partial records indicating payment records are public. UC Riverside, for example, reported providing male athletes about $200,000 and female athletes $70,000.
Janet Gilmore, a UC Berkeley spokesperson, stated the university is reviewing the complaint and will decline comment at this time.
By the Numbers
$227 million — NIL funds cleared by a national commission in July and August, almost double the amount from last year.
$20.5 million — The maximum amount campuses can direct to student-athletes.
$200,000 — Amount UC Riverside reported providing to male athletes.
$70,000 — Amount UC Riverside reported providing to female athletes.
2024-25 — The fiscal year in which UCLA and UC Berkeley athletics programs operated at a loss.
Funding Sources and Financial Context
UC Berkeley Chancellor Richard Lyons stated last year that the NIL pool consists of athletics revenues, philanthropic funds, and some campus funds. However, Andy Schwarz, a partner at law firm OSKR, emphasized the public nature of these resources. “Every single dollar that the university allocates is taxpayer money, whether it’s donated or not,” Schwarz said.
The financial backdrop for these distributions is complex. A federal report stated that the overwhelming majority of Division I sports programs lose money. Both UCLA and UC Berkeley athletics programs were in the red during the 2024-25 fiscal year, raising questions about how deficit-running departments allocate significant sums to athletes.
Zoom Out
The dispute highlights broader tensions regarding federal mandates and state transparency laws. A Congressional Research Service paper noted that NIL payments raise questions about federally mandated sex-based fairness, particularly as disparities in funding between male and female athletes emerge at various campuses.
Nationally, universities are grappling with how to balance athlete compensation with institutional financial stability and legal compliance. The rapid growth in cleared NIL funds—nearly doubling in a year—has outpaced the development of standardized reporting mechanisms, leaving oversight to individual states and advocacy groups like CalMatters.
What’s Next
The Alameda County Superior Court will now determine whether UC Berkeley must release detailed payment records for its student-athletes. The outcome could set a precedent for how other public universities in California handle similar open records requests regarding NIL compensation.