Competitive Edge: Trade secrets in the new era of revenue sharing and name, image, and likeness in college sports

In June 2025, a federal court approved a monumental settlement in House v. NCAA, resolving a series of class action lawsuits and ushering in a new era of college athletics in which schools may directly pay student athletes under a new revenue-sharing regime.[1] The House settlement—which followed the frenetic adoption of name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals permitted by NCAA v. Alston—also imposed new requirements for NIL deals between student athletes and third parties, such as NIL collectives and college boosters, mandating that athletes report certain NIL agreements and subjecting others to a “fair-market value” analysis. House raises unique considerations for those entrenched in the rapidly evolving world of college athletics—including the extent to which schools themselves may invoke trade-secret protection to preserve the secrecy of their strategies and efforts to gain a competitive edge.

Post-House, most schools have sought to protect the secrecy of information concerning their revenue-sharing programs, such as revenue-sharing contracts with student athletes and methods and strategies for allocating funds among programs—in some cases claiming that this information comprises trade secrets. Efforts by watchdogs and journalists to request this data from public institutions under public records law, for example, have been largely rebuffed. Last year, Clemson University declined to disclose its student-athlete revenue-sharing contracts, data concerning the number and value of agreements entered into per sport, and written policies and planning documents related to revenue-sharing in response to a public records request, positing that public disclosure of these “trade secrets” would create a competitive disadvantage.[2] Just this week, the University of Minnesota similarly declined to publicly disclose data on individual athletes, breakdowns of payments among programs, or its methods of allocating its $20.5 million revenue share, likewise invoking trade-secret protection.[3] In resisting public disclosure, schools have also invoked privacy concerns for student athletes, distinguishing records on athlete compensation from traditionally public employee data—including as “educational records” exempt from public disclosure under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).[4]

When it comes to trade-secret protection, these colleges may have a case. Athletic departments in major conferences have become massive commercial enterprises, reporting annual operating revenues reaching hundreds of millions of dollars. Indisputably, these revenues—derived from major sources like media and broadcast rights, ticket sales, postseason payouts, and licensing and sponsorships—can suffer when a school’s athletic teams are less competitive. So, the argument goes, information concerning a college’s revenue sharing strategies, methods, and contractual terms for allocating payments to athletes among and within its athletic programs helps give the school a competitive leg up and—by virtue of secrecy—offers economic value. As these schools see it, public disclosure of this information to competing athletic departments would negate that economic advantage.

Thus far, at least two lawsuits have been filed pitting public schools’ assertion of trade-secret protection over revenue-sharing and NIL information against a state’s public record laws. In a now-consolidated action in New Mexico state court, a non-profit watchdog has sued the University of New Mexico and New Mexico State University under the state’s public records law for withholding NIL and revenue-sharing contracts, “templates” of contracts, designated student-athlete lists, memorandums of understanding concerning student-athlete compensation, and NIL licenses between the universities and student-athletes. The lawsuit alleges that the universities withheld these records in part because, to varying degrees, they are considered trade secrets exempt from disclosure under New Mexico’s public records law.[5] The case remains pending.

Meanwhile, in Louisiana, journalists this week sued Louisiana State University (LSU) seeking records, under the state’s public records law, concerning LSU’s revenue sharing with student athletes. Although it has yet to respond to the complaint, LSU has reportedly issued a statement that releasing its revenue-sharing records would put the school “at a competitive disadvantage on the field.”[6]

Perhaps bolstering the case for trade-secret claims in some states is the adoption of legislation expressly exempting the disclosure of public universities’ revenue-sharing and NIL information under public records’ laws.[7] Such laws—decried by some—may help public schools dodge public records requests (and ensuing litigation) seeking disclosure of revenue-sharing data. Of course, private schools do not face the risk of such lawsuits, but questions abound as to the resolution of trade-secret debates and their impact on the competitive landscape of college sports. If public colleges not protected by public records exemptions are forced to publicly disclose their revenue sharing data, what of the private colleges—including those they compete with—under no such obligation? If some major schools do publicly disclose their revenue-sharing and NIL information—voluntarily or involuntarily—what impact will that have on the ability of competing schools to invoke trade secret protection over their own information? A still different variant of the trade secret debate could arise for institutions, like the University of Kentucky, which elect to migrate their athletic departments (and revenue sharing administration) to distinct operating companies.[8]

In any case, colleges and universities seeking to maximize their trade secret rights—public and private alike—must be vigilant in their efforts to guard the secrecy of competitive information concerning their revenue-sharing programs. At minimum, these institutions should take care to:

• identify and define those proprietary aspects of the program the department believes offer competitive advantage (and economic value)—including, for example, contracts with student-athletes; methods, formulas, policies, workflows, or processes governing revenue allocations, recruiting, or program administration; proprietary software or databases utilized to administer revenue-sharing programs; or data concerning revenue-sharing allocation among or within athletic programs and athletes;
• strictly limit access to such sensitive information within an athletic department to those with an operational need to utilize it (i.e., “need-to-know”);
• leverage access controls and identity management, including multi-factor authentication, privileged-account monitoring, access logs, and time-limited access when appropriate;
• utilize technical protections for collaboration among personnel, including encryption at rest and in transit and secure collaboration platforms;
• enter confidentiality agreements with any personnel accessing sensitive revenue-sharing data that clearly defines the school’s confidential information and trade secrets and sets forth clear expectations as to safeguarding requirements;
• implement robust departmental policies on protecting sensitive information, including requirements for labeling, handling, and sharing, and conducting formal training with all relevant personnel;
• design employee lifecycle controls, including exit interviews and checklists emphasizing confidentiality obligations post-employment;
• consider the legality of employee noncompete agreements within a relevant jurisdiction; and
• design an action plan in the case of any suspected unauthorized disclosure or breach of confidentiality.

 

[1] See generally In re: College Athlete NIL Litig., Case No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2025), Doc. No. 978, Opinion Regarding Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement.

[2] See The Post and Courier, Clemson is keeping athletes’ NIL contracts under wraps, claiming they’re ‘trade secrets’ (May 6, 2025), available at https://www.postandcourier.com/sports/clemson/clemson-revenue-sharing-contracts-trade-secret/article_0f50ce48-1313-4084-bb85-d1bce83e9cf8.html.

[3] See The Minnesota Star Tribune, How much is the University of Minnesota paying athletes? They refuse to say (Mar. 11, 2026), available at https://www.startribune.com/the-university-of-minnesota-citing-trade-secrets-wont-disclose-athlete-payments/601594622.

[4] See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4).

[5] See New Mexico Foundation for Open Government v. University of New Mexico Bd. of Regents, et al., Case No. D-202-CV-2025-08282 (N.M. Albuquerque Dist. Ct.), complaints available at https://nmfog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/lawsuit-nmfog-v.-unm.pdf, and https://nmfog.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/lawsuit-nmfog-et.-al.-v.-nmsu.pdf.

[6] WAFB, I-Team: WAFB, two other media outlets sue LSU over denied public records (Mar. 12, 2026), https://www.wafb.com/2026/03/12/i-team-wafb-sues-lsu-along-with-two-other-media-outlets-over-denied-public-records/.

[7] E.g., La. Stat. § 17:3703(M) (2025) Any document disclosed by the intercollegiate athlete to the postsecondary education institution that references the terms and conditions of the athlete’s contract for compensation shall be confidential and not subject to inspection, examination, copying, or reproduction pursuant to the Public Records Law.

[8] See University of Kentucky, Champions Blue, Our Innovative Approach to the Future of College Athletics, https://pres.uky.edu/champions-blue (last accessed Mar. 12, 2026).