By TODD HORNE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR
Let’s start with the point that has been misunderstood — and sometimes deliberately mischaracterized — since this lawsuit was filed.
This lawsuit is not about LSU football.
It is not about attacking the program, embarrassing athletes, or exposing players.
It is about whether a public university must follow the law when it spends money.
That is the question.
Tiger Rag, along with reporters from the Louisiana Illuminator and WAFB-TV, filed a lawsuit after Louisiana State University refused to release records showing how it distributes revenue-sharing payments to athletes.
The plaintiffs in the case are Tiger Rag Executive Editor Todd Horne, Louisiana Illuminator reporter Piper Hutchinson and WAFB investigative reporter Chris Nakamoto.
The defendant is LSU through its custodian of public records — the entity responsible under Louisiana law for responding to requests made under the state’s public records statute.
That distinction matters.
This case is not a lawsuit against athletes, coaches or the football program.
It is a public-records dispute with a public institution.
We requested records showing how LSU distributes revenue-sharing payments to athletes under the new compensation system in college athletics.
LSU declined to release those records.
When a public institution denies a records request, the law provides a simple mechanism to resolve that disagreement: the courts.
That is exactly what this lawsuit asks a judge to do.
As our attorney, Scott Sternberg, has explained:
“If a public university writes the check, the public should be able to see the check.”
That principle is not controversial.
It is the foundation of transparency laws across the country.
Public institutions disclose how they spend money.
They disclose salaries.
They disclose contracts.
They disclose vendor payments.
They disclose budgets.
LSU itself publicly releases detailed information about what it pays coaches, administrators and employees.
No one argues those disclosures are inappropriate.
The question now is whether a new category of spending — direct payments from a public university to athletes — should somehow be exempt from the same transparency.
Some critics have asked why anyone needs to know what athletes are being paid.
That question misunderstands the issue.
This lawsuit is not about athletes.
It is about how a public institution distributes money under its control.
Transparency laws do not exist because people are curious.
They exist because public institutions are accountable to the public.
And before anyone repeats the familiar line that “LSU athletics doesn’t use taxpayer money,” it is important to understand how public law actually works.
Athletic departments generate enormous revenue through television contracts, ticket sales, sponsorships and donations.
But once those funds are controlled by a public university, they fall under the laws governing that institution.
It is not about where the money originated.
It is about who controls it.
Public universities do not get to decide which laws they follow based on competitive advantage or convenience.
If the law requires disclosure, the institution follows the law.
If the law no longer fits the new realities of college athletics, then lawmakers can change the law.
But institutions do not simply ignore it.
The broader context here is impossible to ignore.
College athletics is undergoing the most dramatic economic transformation in its history.
Following the House v. NCAA settlement, universities are now permitted to share tens of millions of dollars annually with athletes.
And many already are.
Schools like LSU are actively distributing revenue-sharing payments to players today.
For decades universities insisted athletes were not employees and that direct compensation was prohibited.
Today those same universities are writing checks to players.
In many ways major college athletics now operates like a professional sports enterprise.
Yet the governance system surrounding it still resembles a structure built decades ago.
The NCAA once served as the central governing body for college sports.
But after years of legal defeats — including the Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston — its authority has been significantly weakened.
Today college athletics operates under a patchwork of state laws, court rulings and conference policies.
Different states have different NIL laws.
Different courts are interpreting those laws differently.
And universities competing in the same conferences are often operating under completely different legal frameworks.
That is not a sustainable system.
Even LSU’s own leadership has acknowledged the problem.
Athletic director Verge Ausberry has described the current model as “broken” and “unsustainable.”
He’s not wrong.
You cannot run a national sports industry under fifty different legal systems forever.
Consider the implications.
If Louisiana courts determine that revenue-sharing payments must be disclosed under public records law, but another state’s courts reach the opposite conclusion, universities competing in the same conference could be operating under completely different transparency rules.
One school might be required to disclose how it distributes millions of dollars to athletes.
Another school might be allowed to keep those payments secret.
That is not a level playing field.
It is a governance problem.
And that is why this lawsuit matters beyond Baton Rouge.
College athletics has evolved into a multi-billion-dollar national enterprise.
Television deals stretch into the billions.
Conferences span the country.
Recruiting is national.
The transfer portal is national.
Yet the legal framework governing that enterprise remains fragmented and inconsistent.
Eventually those contradictions must be resolved.
Either universities will continue operating as public institutions subject to public-law obligations — including transparency.
Or college athletics will evolve into a different structure entirely, one that more closely resembles professional sports.
But the current hybrid model — where public universities participate in a massive commercial enterprise while selectively invoking privacy and competitive concerns — cannot last indefinitely.
Cases like this force the question into the open.
They ask courts to answer questions institutions have so far preferred to avoid.
Are payments made by public universities to athletes public expenditures?
Do transparency laws apply to revenue sharing?
And how should public law operate in this new economic landscape?
These are not anti-LSU questions.
They are governance questions.
They are questions every public university in America will eventually face.
Transparency is not an attack on LSU.
Transparency is how public institutions earn trust.
And the rule of law does not bend for business models.
College athletics is being reinvented in real time.
This lawsuit simply asks the courts to clarify how the law applies in the new era of athlete compensation.
FAQ
Why is Tiger Rag suing LSU?
The lawsuit seeks records showing how LSU distributes revenue-sharing payments to athletes under Louisiana’s public records law.
Who filed the lawsuit?
Tiger Rag Executive Editor Todd Horne, Louisiana Illuminator reporter Piper Hutchinson, and WAFB investigative reporter Chris Nakamoto.
Who is being sued?
Louisiana State University through its custodian of public records.
What is the legal issue?
Whether payments made by a public university to athletes must be disclosed under state transparency laws.
Why does the case matter nationally?
Because public universities across the country are now paying athletes, and courts may need to determine how transparency laws apply to those payments.
Be the first to comment