Among the four NIL (Name Image Likeness) issues that kept popping up at the SEC spring meetings: transparency. 

https://www.tampabay.com/sports/gators/2022/06/05/the-four-nil-issues-t…

Kentucky new law governing NIL expressly makes confidential player contracts and records documenting statutorily mandated university oversight of contracts. 

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/22rs/sb6.html

In March, the Kentucky Open Government Coalition questioned lawmakers’ decision to sidestep standard open records privacy analysis, commenting “Surely some public oversight—even limited oversight that is tailored to protect the athletes’ privacy rights—is warranted in these uncharted and potentially treacherous waters.”

https://kyopengov.org/blog/kentucky-nil-bill-signed-law-questions-remai…

We wrote:

“Kentucky’s SB 6 does not reference the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Instead it cites the privacy exception to the open records law — KRS 61.878(1)(a) — declaring that NIL agreements 

‘contain[ ] information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under KRS 61.878 and [are] not subject to disclosure.’

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=51393

“To the extent that SB 6 charges state universities with specific oversight duties, the Kentucky Open Government Coalition remains concerned about the public’s ability to oversee the overseers — to monitor, so to speak, the monitors — namely, state universities.”

No weighing of competing public and private interests in analyzing access to NIL and university related records. They are categorically exempt under the new law. 

Our rush to enact an NIL law may have come at the expense of the public’s right to know. 

“If you want to make sure that it’s executed properly,” one SEC coach observes, “I think we could benefit from some regulation and some monitoring and just having a better understanding of how exactly it’s being used.”