A court decision on Thursday underscored people university leaders’ increased legal responsibilities to be open about the sport’s business as colleges navigate fast-moving industry changes in athletics.
A temporary restraining order was granted by North Carolina Superior Court Judge Alyson Adams Grine, who forbids UNC Chapel Hill trustees from holding finished sessions to discuss the Tar Heels ‘ “financials, budgeting, deficit, continued or future conference alignment and related proper planning.” The judge will carry a hearing on May 20 and the purchase will remain in effect until at least until May 20.
The TRO comes a time after David McKenzie, a North Carolina citizen, academic home and internet rights attorney and parents of a UNC student, sued the directors. He claims they’re violating North Carolina’s open meet law and public information act. McKenzie’s 19- site problem cites board chairman John Preyer saying a” finished session” of the board was necessary to discuss what “needs to get done to solution” UNC athletics ‘ financial challenges.

McKenzie also makes reference to Preyer’s comments in the past regarding UNC’s ACC membership and the issue of conference alignment. Numerous ACC members, including two who have filed lawsuits against the organization ( Florida State and Clemson ), claim they are n’t making enough money from the conference and its media rights agreements.
Additionally, McKenzie cites a statement from a separate trustee, Jennifer Halsey Evans, that reportedly raised concerns about athletics during a special meeting on Monday. She also mentioned that the subject was being discussed during a closed session meeting last November. Adding to trustees ‘ alleged secrecy, McKenzie says they’ve been holding “informal” —and closed—meetings regarding UNC’s “ongoing affiliation with the ACC”.
McKenzie argues that the athletics budget of a public university is “undeniably a matter of public concern.” He reasons that if UNC athletics is running a deficit, there are three likely ways to fill the revenue gap: ( 1 ) get more money from UNC students, perhaps through fees or higher tuition, ( 2 ) get more money from North Carolina taxpayers, or ( 3 ) get another athletic conference to pay UNC more.
According to McKenzie, UNC has cited statutory exemptions from a general requirement for open meetings under state law. However, McKenzie contends that none of the exceptions are valid.
He contends that given the public’s relationship to the information, budget deficits and financial management issues for a public university do not qualify as confidential information. Additionally, McKenzie asserts that attorney-client privilege is exempt unless the athletics discussion involves” specific, confidential legal advice directly related to ongoing or imminent litigation.” While FSU and Clemson are in litigation with the ACC, UNC is not—for now, at least.
Although Grine’s order was brief and did n’t specifically address McKenzie’s arguments, she found he had raised” specific facts” that reveal “immediate and irreparable damage will result if the TRO does not issue”.

The ACC’s other three North Carlina-based members do not have the same level of transparency requirements. Duke and Wake Forest are private universities, which means they can make athletic decisions as necessary within the bounds of their respective universities ‘ regulations. While their students, staff, faculty and alumni can influence through threatening to transfer, find new employers or not donate, they ca n’t rely on state meeting and records laws to demand transparency.
Expect to see more transparency-related lawsuits in the coming months involving athletes, NIL, and public universities ‘ decisions regarding conference membership.