The University of Wisconsin is withholding even redacted versions of its current athletes’ NIL agreements, claiming that such transparency would “endanger the competitive position of the university” and ultimately “harm the public interest.”
In a detailed response to a recent public records request from Sportico, the university maintained this stance regarding written agreements between Badger athletes and the institution dating back to last year.
“In the highly competitive arena of Division I intercollegiate athletics, your request would necessitate revealing information that enables the university to compete effectively in the Big Ten Conference and on a national stage,” wrote UW’s public records custodian in an email this week. “The public has a vested interest in a robust and self-sustaining university system. The achievements of teams within the Division of Intercollegiate Athletics contribute to the sustainability of all athletic programs, bolster the university’s reputation and financial integrity, and serve as an economic engine for Madison and the state of Wisconsin.”
One agreement that may be particularly sensitive involves a two-year, revenue-sharing contract that the school reportedly established with former Badger defensive back Xavier Lucas before denying his request to transfer. In a post on X this past Friday, Lucas’ attorney, Darren Heitner, characterized the agreement as a “[Memorandum of understanding] contingent on approval of the House [v. NCAA] settlement.” Despite the university’s refusal to grant his request, Lucas is still set to transfer to the University of Miami for the fall 2025 semester, a move that the NCAA has tacitly approved.
Although Sportico did not specifically request details about Lucas’ or any future revenue-sharing agreements, Wisconsin asserts that “the information sought is pertinent to ongoing and future negotiations with student athletes and recruits.” The university contends that revealing this information would create an “especially stark” disadvantage as it seeks to compete with private institutions and schools that face “less stringent open records requirements.” (The Big Ten includes two private universities, Northwestern and USC, while Penn State, as a “state-related institution,” is exempt from Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know law.)
In its denial, UW referenced a 2006 state appellate court ruling in a public records case, State of Wisconsin v. Beaver Dam Area Development Corporation, where the Wisconsin attorney general had contested a nonprofit corporation doing business with a local municipality, asserting it should adhere to the state’s open records and open meetings laws. The appellate court, in overturning a lower court decision favorable to the state, highlighted the judiciary’s historical recognition of the need to balance the disadvantages and advantages of public disclosure.
A Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in 2008 reversed the appellate decision in the case, which was viewed as a gain for public access.
Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, criticized the university’s justification for denying Sportico’s request, labeling it “absurd.” He noted that there is no substantial evidence to support the assertion that releasing redacted NIL agreements would disadvantage UW competitively, especially if sensitive information like athletes’ names or specific financial terms were excluded.
Along with its denial, UW also cited student privacy laws, which many public universities commonly invoke when refusing to release athlete NIL agreements. Several state NIL laws now specifically exempt endorsement deals between college athletes and public records laws. However, Wisconsin stands out as one of the few states yet to implement an NIL law, with a proposed state assembly bill from February failing to advance.
The ongoing discussion regarding transparency around name, image, and likeness has been contentious since prior to the NCAA’s introduction of its interim NIL policy in July 2021.
The university’s particular assertion regarding the wide-ranging implications of disclosure is noteworthy. Traditionally, educational institutions and their administrators have faced pressure to uphold NCAA amateurism while downplaying the financial realities of the relationship between college athletes and schools.
In 2018, UW’s former chancellor, Rebecca Blank, provided testimony on behalf of the defendants in Alston v. NCAA, an antitrust case that challenged the NCAA’s grant-in-aid cap. In response to questioning by the plaintiff’s attorney, Steve Berman, about whether compensating college athletes would impact consumer demand, Blank affirmed that it would—and went further.
“My backing and the support from the leadership at our university, given our core mission here is educational, would be diminished,” she stated in her testimony. “It’s uncertain … whether we would continue to maintain an athletic program. We don’t aspire to professional sports; we prioritize student athletes.”
Following backlash, the university quickly retracted Blank’s implied warning about abandoning college athletics if players received payment. Currently, UW claims that these transactions are so vital to its own future—and that of the state—that securing these arrangements must remain confidential.
Image Source: Koeppen Photo / Shutterstock
