CalMatters, the nonprofit news organization known for its coverage of California government and policy, filed a lawsuit against UCLA this week after nearly a year of trying — and failing — to get straight answers about how much money the university is paying its student athletes.
The legal action, filed Monday, comes after CalMatters sent public records requests last fall to 16 University of California and California State University campuses asking for details on payments made to Division I athletes. Most schools gave vague or incomplete responses. CalMatters argues that because these are public institutions spending public resources, taxpayers have a right to know exactly who is being paid, how much, and under what terms.
“When public institutions distribute public resources, the public is entitled to know who receives those resources, in what amounts, and on what terms,” the lawsuit states. A UC system spokesperson, Stett Holbrook, said the university intends to “respond appropriately in court” and that it takes both the California Public Records Act and student privacy seriously.
The dispute centers on a fairly new practice: direct payments from universities to athletes, which became legal only last summer following a landmark court settlement. These payments compensate students for the use of their name, image and likeness — commonly called NIL — in university-sanctioned promotions, and they also serve as a recruiting tool, helping schools lure top talent or keep players from transferring elsewhere for better deals.
UCLA and UC Berkeley, home to the state’s most high-profile and financially significant athletic programs, initially refused to release records, citing concerns about competitive disadvantage and student privacy. After CalMatters’ attorneys at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP pushed back, both campuses eventually released some data. The numbers show that each school spent roughly $20.5 million on athlete payments during the 2025-26 academic year — the maximum allowed. UCLA reported paying 229 athletes; UC Berkeley reported 147.
Neither school, however, would say which athletes or teams received the money, a level of transparency that some other California universities did provide.
“We’re simply asking these public institutions to follow the law,” said CalMatters CEO Neil Chase, “and explain what’s being done with tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.” Chase said his organization spent months trying to negotiate a compromise that would satisfy privacy concerns while still providing basic transparency, but ultimately felt legal action was necessary. He said a similar suit targeting UC Berkeley is being prepared.
Two campuses stood out for their relative openness: San Diego State and UC Riverside. UC Riverside reported paying its male athletes about $200,000 — much of it going to the men’s basketball program — along with $70,000 for female athletes, though the university didn’t break down most of the individual payments. San Diego State disclosed that it paid its athletes at least $8.6 million during the 2025-26 school year, with more than 60% going to football and most of the remainder to men’s basketball. Female athletes at San Diego State received only about 3% of the total payments, and the university did not specify how many individual players were compensated.
Private universities such as USC and Stanford are exempt from these public records requirements altogether, since state disclosure laws only apply to public institutions.
Universities have long insisted that athletic spending doesn’t come directly from taxpayers, often describing these payments as “revenue-sharing” tied to ticket sales, media rights and sponsorship income. But experts say that framing oversimplifies — or obscures — how the money actually flows.
Nationally, most Division I athletic programs actually lose money. A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office report found the median college athletic department lost about $20 million in the 2023-24 academic year. Within the UC and Cal State systems, shortfalls are often covered using tuition revenue, student fees or general fund dollars — which include state tax money. At UCLA, about 20% of the athletic budget in 2024-25 came from the university’s endowment or general fund; at UC Berkeley, it was nearly 30%. Both programs still ran multimillion-dollar deficits that year. At smaller programs like UC Riverside, general fund and endowment dollars cover the majority of athletic costs.
“Every single dollar that the university allocates is taxpayer money, whether it’s donated or not,” said Andy Schwarz, a sports economist and partner at the law firm OSKR. “It’s like if you have a bathtub and say the money on the right is public and the money on the left is private, but it’s all bathwater, swirling around.”
Despite the shift toward direct payments, the NCAA still bars schools from paying athletes simply to play — a practice known as “pay-for-play.” The change stems from a 2025 legal settlement in a class-action lawsuit brought by former Arizona State swimmer Grant House and former Oregon women’s basketball player Sedona Prince. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approved the deal last spring, and it took effect July 1, 2025.
Many UC and Cal State campuses provided CalMatters with template contracts used with athletes. Though the agreements explicitly state they are not “pay-for-play,” they typically require students to continue competing in their sport in order to keep receiving payments — a distinction that some experts say is largely semantic.
“The marketability value of a CSU athlete, completely stripped away from the field, is worth functionally nothing,” said Matt Brown, who runs the college sports business newsletter Extra Points.
The contracts uniformly state that athletes are not university employees. UC San Diego classifies its athletes as “independent contractors,” while most other schools avoid defining their employment status altogether. San Jose State’s agreement specifically states that athletes are not eligible for workers’ compensation.
UCLA’s contract goes further still, stipulating that athletes cannot sue the university over employment-related claims. Students are encouraged to consult a parent, attorney or agent before signing — but if they don’t, they waive any right to challenge the agreement based on lack of representation.
Unlike professional athletes, college players remain without union representation, despite unionization attempts at Dartmouth College and USC. “Essentially what the colleges want is all the benefits of collective bargaining without having to give up any of the downsides that professional sports leagues agree to with their unions, such as minimum salaries and worker compensation if there are injuries,” Schwarz said.
While professional sports salaries are typically public record — even though the leagues themselves are private entities — college athlete pay remains largely hidden from view. Similar public records lawsuits have been filed by journalists and transparency advocates in New Mexico, Louisiana and South Carolina, all seeking disclosure of university payments to student athletes.
Separately, athletes are still allowed to pursue outside NIL deals with brands, on top of whatever compensation they receive from their universities. California was at the forefront of this shift, passing a 2019 law that first allowed college athletes to profit from endorsement deals — a move that sparked similar legislation across the country.
CalMatters previously reported on the scope of these brand partnerships, which have tended to favor football players, men’s basketball standouts, and a handful of high-profile women’s teams, including UCLA gymnastics — home to Olympic gold medalist Jordan Chiles — and Fresno State women’s basketball, which featured social media stars Haley and Hanna Cavinder. Companies including Toyota, Nike, H&R Block and Bumble, along with the 2024 Biden campaign, have signed endorsement deals worth as much as $300,000 with California college athletes. But the largest sums often come from university-affiliated booster groups known as “collectives,” which funnel donor contributions into athlete payments with minimal public disclosure.
At UC San Diego, records show 18 NIL contracts signed since last July, totaling roughly $560,000 in direct payments — though the university would not say which athletes or teams benefited. The school also launched a new donor collective, the SD Tide Collective. About a week after its formation, members of the men’s basketball team received nearly $500,000 in additional payments from an affiliated group, Tide LLC, for “social media/licensing/appearances.” UC San Diego did not respond to questions about the arrangement or how many players received the funds.
By contrast, UC Santa Barbara saw a steep decline in private NIL deals. In 2024-25, athletes — mostly from the men’s basketball team — reported earning more than $200,000 through such deals. This past year, that figure dropped to roughly $1,000 spread across just 11 agreements.
Even so, overall compensation appears to be rising as universities take on more of the payments directly. UC Santa Barbara paid its athletes nearly $1.4 million during the 2025-26 academic year. As with most schools, the university declined to specify how funds were distributed among individual players or teams, but confirmed that only 26 agreements were signed — meaning the vast majority of its athletes received no compensation at all.
Original source: CalMatters
