When top University of California campuses pay student athletes large sums in exchange for use of their NIL — name, image, likeness — is it taxpayer money that is being spent?
Of course it is.
UCLA and Cal, the two UC campuses with the biggest athletic programs, claim that the pay is really just “revenue sharing” from ticket sales and broadcast contracts. But even the vaunted Bruins teams and the less-vaunted Golden Bears, big and beloved as they are, in the end lose money, with the balance being made up out of university general funds, which come from tuition, state funds and the taxpayer investment that built the schools in the first place. At UCLA, athletics is about 20% in the red every year; at UC Berkeley, it’s about 30% annually.
So the athletes are being paid with public money, and, as with all state employees, their salaries should be disclosed, right?
But they are not.
You did know that some top Division 1 college athletes, especially men’s football players, are now being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year while they are still in school, right? When it was first allowed, I wrote in this space: “I’m just trying to figure out the lifestyle changes. … Will BMOCs rent penthouse suites rather than live in the dorms? Take their dates to Cabo for the weekend rather than the movies? Make a down payment on the Lambo now rather than on draft day?”
I still find the whole thing unreal. But there it is. At your USCs and Stanfords, private institutions, I understand that secrecy about how much money is changing hands is allowed. But it’s not allowed when the money is public.
Yet CalMatters asked the UC schools to share information about what they’re paying student athletes and who is getting the scratch, the universities refused. So the statewide nonprofit news site sued UCLA, and is preparing to sue Cal, in order to force the needed transparency.
“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 says.
The two leading UCs initially said that sharing any information about how much they pay student athletes would put the players “at a competitive disadvantage” — I suppose vis a vis other schools they can now so easily transfer to and ply their trade — or violate students’ right to privacy in education.
But then they met with CalMatters lawyer, and coughed up a little info.
“They each said they spent about $20.5 million paying athletes in the 2025-26 academic year,” CalMatters reports, “which is the maximum amount allowed. UCLA said it paid 229 athletes. UC Berkeley said it paid 147.”
But both still declined to give any figures about who they paid how much, and even which sports programs are paying students.
It averages out to $89,000 per athlete at UCLA and $139,000 at Cal. Presumably, they’re not all paid the same. I’m sure it would seem intrusive to the students for us to know who’s getting what. But it was student athletes who agitated to get compensation for all the glory they bring to their schools. I’m sure the professional players who work for privately owned teams would just as soon that we not know the details of their lucrative contracts as well. Yet somehow we do.
San Diego State was a bit more forthcoming about the $8.6 million it paid this year: more than 60% went to the football team. Men’s basketball received most of the rest. About 3% went to female athletes.
I’m not all that stoked about paying college athletes in the first place. The best to be said for it is its acknowledgement that the fun and games is simply business. For which workers should be paid. At public schools, we have a right to ask to whom our money is going.
Larry Wilson is on the Southern California News Group editorial board. lwilson@scng.com