By Michael S. Carroll
In March of 2026, journalists from WAFB-TV, the Louisiana Illuminator, and Tiger Rag have filed a lawsuit against Louisiana State University (LSU) following denial of records requests related to payments made to student-athletes under revenue share payments resulting from the recent landmark NCAA v. House Settlement. The lawsuit centers on a key legal and ethical question: whether LSU must disclose how it spends public funds under new college athletics revenue-sharing rules.
The dispute arises from a major change in college sports following a 2025 settlement that allows universities to directly compensate athletes. Under these rules, LSU can distribute up to approximately $20.5 million annually to student-athletes. Of note, the request does not seek information relating to NIL deals with private companies, which are exempt from disclosure under state public records law.
The journalists in the case requested records detailing how this money is distributed among athletes and programs, arguing that this is considered public funding because it flows through a state institution, as stated by their attorney:
“The expenditure of public funds is what government transparency laws are all, at their bedrock, fundamentally about. Asking for records of how Louisiana government, including LSU, spends state dollars is usually not a question,” Sternberg said. “In short, the state’s payments and ledgers are not off limits, and they are not just because they are paid to college athletes, either. The funds appropriated by the legislature are public” (WAFB Staff, 2026).
LSU denied the request, arguing that the records are exempt from disclosure for several reasons. The university claims the information is protected under federal student privacy laws and state-level exemptions related to Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements. Additionally, LSU contends that releasing the data could put LSU at a competitive disadvantage on the field against other programs. Colleges and universities generally do not disclose NIL deals regarding their student-athletes.
The journalists, however, dispute these claims. Represented by attorney Scott Sternberg, they argue that the lawsuit does not seek access to private NIL deals between athletes and third parties, which are indeed protected. Instead, they are requesting records specifically tied to revenue-sharing funds distributed directly by LSU, money they contend is public because it originates from state-controlled resources and institutional revenues.
At the heart of the case is the principle of government transparency. The plaintiffs argue that Louisiana’s public records laws guarantee citizens the right to know how public money is spent and that the rise of NIL and athlete compensation does not override these longstanding transparency requirements. According to their legal argument, expenditures by a public university should remain subject to public scrutiny, regardless of whether the recipients are student-athletes. Again, these records do not include NIL agreements involving private companies.
The lawsuit was filed in a Baton Rouge court and reflects growing tension between evolving college sports economics and traditional open-records laws. LSU, for its part, has indicated it had not yet been formally served at the time of reporting but maintains that the records are legally protected and competitively sensitive.
This case can be best understood within the broader legal framework of Louisiana’s “sunshine laws,” formally known as the Louisiana Public Records Law. These statutes establish a strong presumption of public access to government records and are grounded in the Louisiana Constitution’s explicit guarantee that “no person shall be denied the right to examine public documents, except in cases established by law.” For context, all 50 states have some sort of sunshine law, although they can go by different names and can vary by requirements Additionally, these laws contain specific exceptions or exemptions, such as issues affecting national security, ongoing criminal investigations, or private personnel matters.
From the perspective of Louisiana’s sunshine laws, the central legal issue is whether any of these asserted exemptions properly override the default presumption of disclosure. Louisiana courts have consistently interpreted the Public Records Law broadly in favor of access, requiring agencies to demonstrate a clear statutory exemption rather than relying on generalized assertions of confidentiality or competitive harm. The journalists’ position in this case is that NIL-related exemptions do not extend to direct payments made by a public university itself, particularly when those payments are part of an institutional revenue-sharing system established and administered by the university.
Importantly, the case also reflects the evolving legal complexity introduced by the post–NCAA House settlement era. Revenue-sharing arrangements blur traditional distinctions between athletic compensation, institutional budgeting, and private endorsement income. While NIL payments from third-party entities are generally treated as private and exempt from disclosure, revenue-sharing funds administered directly by a public university are more plausibly categorized as public expenditures, and thus more clearly subject to sunshine law requirements. A growing number of state legislatures have proposed or passed laws that explicitly shield NIL information out of public record. For example, in April of 2026, Wisconsin legislation signed by Governor Tony Evers shields University of Wisconsin (UW) student-athlete NIL contracts from state public records laws provides while also providing $14.6 million annually for UW-Madison athletic facility debt (Styf, 2026).
In this context, the lawsuit functions as a test case for how Louisiana’s public records regime will adapt to new financial structures in college athletics. If the court finds that LSU must disclose the records, it would reinforce the principle that transparency obligations extend to all forms of public institutional spending, even in emerging hybrid compensation systems. Conversely, if LSU’s exemptions are upheld, it could signal a narrowing of sunshine law applicability in areas involving student-athlete compensation and competitive athletic operations.
Ultimately, the dispute illustrates a broader tension at the heart of sunshine law jurisprudence: the ongoing effort to reconcile the public’s constitutional right to access government records with modern claims of privacy, competitiveness, and administrative complexity in public institutions. More broadly, the case could have significant implications beyond LSU. As universities nationwide begin paying athletes directly through revenue sharing, the outcome of this case may determine whether such financial arrangements must be publicly disclosed at taxpayer-funded institutions. A ruling in favor of the journalists could expand transparency in college athletics, while a decision supporting LSU could reinforce privacy and competitive protections for athletic departments navigating this new financial landscape.
References
Styf, J. (2026). Evers signs $15M Wisconsin NIL bill into law, keeping public records exemption. The Center Square. https://www.thecentersquare.com/wisconsin/article_0935a032-2e9f-4f6b-9072-5b107c109d15.html
WAFB Staff (2026). I-TEAM: WAFB, two other media outlets sue LSU over denied public records. KCLPTV.com. https://www.kplctv.com/2026/03/12/i-team-wafb-two-other-media-outlets-sue-lsu-over-denied-public-records/
Michael S. Carroll serves as a Professor of Sport Management at Troy University, where he specializes in sport law and risk management within the sport and recreation industries. A prolific scholar, he has authored over 40 articles and delivered more than 50 presentations at professional conferences. Dr. Carroll also plays a vital role in mentorship, working closely with candidates in Troy’s doctoral program. He lives in Orlando, FL.
