How much is the University of Minnesota paying athletes? They refuse to say.

[BleedGopher]

Per DeYoe:

The University of Minnesota is refusing to release either individual or team-by-team details about how it’s directly paying student athletes.

Citing privacy and trade secrets, university officials refused repeated data requests from the Minnesota Star Tribune that aimed to understand how the school is compensating athletes after the historic House v. NCAA settlement, which lets schools pay $20.5 million to its athletes this year. The school cited student privacy when refusing to release data on individual athletes, and also refused to release payment breakdown by program because the school considers it commercially valuable information.

“Such summary data would reveal the method for allocating the $20.5 million, which the university is protecting as a trade secret,” said U spokesman Joe Linstroth.

While the school isn’t disclosing specific spending, officials said last year the money would go to football, men’s and women’s basketball, women’s volleyball and men’s hockey.

The university isn’t alone in shielding the data. Two Southeastern Conference schools are the only ones from the most powerful sports conferences releasing a specific breakdown of spending.

The rationale for nondisclosure: In a shifting college landscape where schools are bidding for top athletes, disclosing payment data could put them at a competitive disadvantage.

https://www.startribune.com/the-university-of-minnesota-citing-trade-secrets-wont-disclose-athlete-payments/601594622

Go Gophers!!

 

[proudgopher]

In due time, the courts will force disclosure.

 

[Some guy]

In due time, the courts will force disclosure.

Don’t know if that is true.
At public institutions students have a right to privacy.

So you may be right but it’s not as clear cut as just waiting for a court


FERPA protects education records. So if employment is dependent education enrollment then it has different public record standards than a regular employee. There are probably some lawyers who would argue it would be illegal to disclose the information without permission from the student.
A likely work around would be to put the permission in the rev sharing agreement contract or NiL contract. But they may not want to do tha.


It’s complicated IMO

 

[gopherbadgerman]

I don't think that NIL payments from collectives need to be made public, but I do think that public universities that pay athletes should disclose what they are paying out. Maybe not tied to specific names, but to each sport.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

It’s complicated IMO

Only for a newspaper trying to get that data, most likely to use it in a negative context (i.e how dare the men's football players get $x while such and such gets $y).

I personally don't care at all what the players are getting.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

I don't think that NIL payments from collectives need to be made public, but I do think that public universities that pay athletes should disclose what they are paying out.

I'd agree if they were handing out money from tax dollars - then us taxpayers deserve to know. But how they spend money they earn themselves, that's not public info imo.

 

[Some guy]

Only for a newspaper trying to get that data, most likely to use it in a negative context (i.e how dare the men's football players get $x while such and such gets $y).

I personally don't care at all what the players are getting.

I meant legally complicated

 

[Gophers1992]

Only for a newspaper trying to get that data, most likely to use it in a negative context (i.e how dare the men's football players get $x while such and such gets $y).

I personally don't care at all what the players are getting.

Ding ding ding, the strib is just fishing for outrage material.

 

[SomeGopherFan]

If the U has already stated what specific programs would and would not receive revenue sharing dollars, and also has implied a rough breakdown of the allocations, I don't really see much point in keeping the exact split per program a secret.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

I don't really see much point in keeping the exact split per program a secret.

It might be because you don't want freshman high school athletes to start making a list that is ordered on how much schools pay their players.

Since they don't know, they might listen to us and eventually come here for the "life program". If they see that we are near the bottom, then they might never even consider us.

Kinda like if you don't make a lot of money, you don't put that on your dating profile. You talk to the women first, get them interested in you, then hope they don't mind that much when you tell them how much you make in salary.

 

[gopherbadgerman]

Fair point

I'd agree if they were handing out money from tax dollars - then us taxpayers deserve to know. But how they spend money they earn themselves, that's not public info imo.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

I think everyone understands why they want to keep it secret, but I am pretty confident that the money that comes from the University as "revenue sharing" is going to be disclosed at some point, the same way that you can find out how much they pay to anyone. The motives of the requestor are irrelevant to the question of whether data requested is or is not "public data."

 

[LeftofThaDial]

I'd agree if they were handing out money from tax dollars - then us taxpayers deserve to know. But how they spend money they earn themselves, that's not public info imo.

Would you feel differently if you were a student being charged a fee to pay the athletes receiving rev sharing?

 

[UpAndUnder43]

Would you feel differently if you were a student being charged a fee to pay the athletes receiving rev sharing?

I wouldn’t. Mainly because I’m choosing to go to that particular university and the fee is known. People who complain about stuff they signed up for baffle me.

MAYBE I’d feel differently if I enrolled because the fee was implemented and then it was added midway through my college career. Because I didn’t sign up for it but it was added and transferring isn’t always a reasonable plan.

 

[LeftofThaDial]

I wouldn’t. Mainly because I’m choosing to go to that particular university and the fee is known. People who complain about stuff they signed up for baffle me.

MAYBE I’d feel differently if I enrolled because the fee was implemented and then it was added midway through my college career. Because I didn’t sign up for it but it was added and transferring isn’t always a reasonable plan.

It was added last year, and it’s $100 a semester. Not a ton, but it generates 3.5 million a semester for the athletes. My kids a Junior and it got under her skin a bit. Knowing you’re paying extra for the athletes to drive $100,000 cars and trucks around campus can bother people.

 

[UpAndUnder43]

It was added last year, and it’s $100 a semester. Not a ton, but it generates 3.5 million a semester for the athletes. My kids a Junior and it got under her skin a bit. Knowing you’re paying extra for the athletes to drive $100,000 cars and trucks around campus can bother people.

Absolutely fair of her to feel that way. I’d be upset if it happened without me knowing before enrolling.

$100/semester isn’t much in the grand scheme of things…but I’d be pissed.

 

[maroonfive]

Whatever they are paying it is not enough.

 

[Some guy]

I think everyone understands why they want to keep it secret,

Because it violates federal law for it not to be a secret

but I am pretty confident that the money that comes from the University as "revenue sharing" is going to be disclosed at some point, the same way that you can find out how much they pay to anyone. The motives of the requestor are irrelevant to the question of whether data requested is or is not "public data."

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

Because it violates federal law for it not to be a secret

Even the U isn't arguing that the disclosure is wholly prohibited by federal law. They are claiming that the specific allocations by sport constitute "trade secrets." You can fashion some types of arguments to protect payments to individuals as protection of student privacy, and there will be fights about that, but that doesn't apply to the institutional election about how to distribute funds to football, which is getting the most, or women's basketball, which is getting a small portion, or cross country, which isn't getting any. They aren't releasing that information because they don't want to do so, not because they can't.

 

[Scottsdale Gopher]

FWIW - Clemson just rejected an FOIA request regarding the portal commitment that Ole Miss managed to flip (after he'd enrolled at Clemson) on FERPA grounds.


I wonder if any of the athletes have NDAs? e.g. If it were to become public that the basketball team is funded with X dollars and you are one of the three most important players making 1/16 of X, you'd get upset pretty quickly. It seems like it'd be impossible to keep people this age from talking about their pocketbooks, but the public secrecy implies some level of discretion amongst the athletes.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

The more interesting question is whether the player compensation scheme fulfills the tests for employee status. Then question whether a similar scheme in the private sector would bring down the penalty hammer.

Go from there.

 

[Scottsdale Gopher]

The more interesting question is whether the player compensation scheme fulfills the tests for employee status. Then question whether a similar scheme in the private sector would bring down the penalty hammer.

Go from there.

It seems clear the NCAA, its member institutions, and the myriad attorneys collectively employed by them do not believe it does. Presumably each athlete contract follows language to ensure that test is never fulfilled. The contract would clarify that the athlete is an independent contractor with the University compensated for the use of their name, image, and likeness. The athlete may contract the use of their name, image, and likeness with any other organization, provided that organization is not a direct competitor of the University. Or similar, maybe, I'm not an attorney.

 

[Gophers1992]

Is there a single benefit to the university for them to share that data?

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

Is there a single benefit to the university for them to share that data?

Universally? Probably not. I suppose that it might benefit the volleyball program to say "hey, we here at the University of Minnesota are so committed to building a championship volleyball program that we are dedicating 5% of our rev share NIL to volleyball while our peers are in the 0-3% range!" But since it's a finite pool, that same message means less is going to the other particpating programs.

 

[1983]

Why do we still pay a "donation" when renewing season tickets?

 

[Swaggerson]

Why do we still pay a "donation" when renewing season tickets?

Because you want a good seat. If you don’t, just give it to the collective.

 

[gopherbadgerman]

Is there a single benefit to the university for them to share that data?

I don't think so. I wouldn't unless required to.

 

[Some guy]

Even the U isn't arguing that the disclosure is wholly prohibited by federal law. They are claiming that the specific allocations by sport constitute "trade secrets." You can fashion some types of arguments to protect payments to individuals as protection of student privacy, and there will be fights about that, but that doesn't apply to the institutional election about how to distribute funds to football, which is getting the most, or women's basketball, which is getting a small portion, or cross country, which isn't getting any. They aren't releasing that information because they don't want to do so, not because they can't.

I don’t know what’s in the agreements the athletes signed. But if there wasn’t a waiver for FERPA then many lawyers it would be illegal to disclose

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

I don’t know what’s in the agreements the athletes signed. But if there wasn’t a waiver for FERPA then many lawyers it would be illegal to disclose

Sure, like I said, lawyers will be able to fashion arguments about disclosing specific payments to individuals, but that's not all they are refusing to disclose. They also want to withhold how much is going to each program. That doesn't implicate student privacy laws and, as I understand it, the U isn't claiming that it does.

 

[Some guy]

Sure, like I said, lawyers will be able to fashion arguments about disclosing specific payments to individuals, but that's not all they are refusing to disclose. They also want to withhold how much is going to each program. That doesn't implicate student privacy laws and, as I understand it, the U isn't claiming that it does.

I was only talking about individual payments