The South Carolina House just made a big move to keep the financial details of college athletes under wraps. In a fast-tracked proposal, lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to exempt revenue-sharing contracts between schools and intercollegiate athletes from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
This comes after an NCAA settlement that lets schools share up to $20.5 million with student-athletes for the 2025-26 school year. The bill, which passed 111-2, is supposed to protect the competitive integrity of South Carolina’s athletic programs and address safety concerns for student-athletes.
Understanding the Legislation
The new bill makes revenue-sharing contracts between schools and student-athletes off-limits to FOIA requests. Basically, the public can’t see how much money individual athletes are making from these deals.
This decision followed a lawsuit in Richland County against the University of South Carolina (USC), after USC refused to release info on its revenue-sharing expenditures.
The NCAA Settlement
With the NCAA settlement, schools that opt in can set aside up to $20.5 million for student-athlete payments during the 2025-26 academic year. Out of that, $2.5 million is reserved for increased scholarships.
The rest gets split among various sports, with football, men’s basketball, women’s basketball, and other programs all getting a piece of the pie.
Competitive Disadvantages and Safety Concerns
One big reason for the bill is the fear of a competitive disadvantage if financial details go public. House Majority Leader Davey Hiott argued that if other schools know what athletes are making, they could just offer more and lure them away.
That could mean a talent drain from South Carolina’s programs, especially at USC and Clemson. Makes sense, right?
Privacy and Safety Issues
State Rep. Justin Bamberg pointed out the safety risks of publicizing individual financial details. If people know how much a student-athlete is making, it could make them a target for extortion or worse.
By keeping these numbers private, the bill aims to protect student-athletes and their families.
Opposition and Concerns
Not everyone was on board, though. State Rep. Chris Hart wondered why a public institution would want to keep private money flowing into universities hidden from the public.
He raised concerns about a lack of transparency and what that means for public accountability.
Legal and Ethical Implications
Frank Heindel filed a lawsuit against USC to find out if the university has to disclose deals student-athletes have directly with the school, since those are currently subject to FOIA. With this new legislation pending, USC has asked for a continuance of the scheduled February 2 hearing.
Heindel criticized the university for trying to change the law mid-process instead of defending its current exemptions.
Comparisons with Other Schools
While South Carolina schools have kept their revenue-sharing details quiet, some universities have been more open. Iowa State Athletic Director Jamie Pollard, for example, shared specific allocations for football, men’s basketball, wrestling, and women’s basketball.
That kind of transparency is a stark contrast to the approach taken by USC and Clemson.
Formula for Revenue Sharing
Most schools are expected to follow the formula outlined in the House v. NCAA settlement for distributing these funds:
- 75% of the revenue sharing money goes to the football program
- 15% goes to men’s basketball
- 5% goes to women’s basketball
- 5% goes to all other sports
Still, South Carolina hasn’t shared how it plans to divide its share, citing competitive and privacy concerns.
Future Implications
This bill could set the tone for other states and universities facing similar questions. By keeping these contracts private, South Carolina hopes to protect its edge and its student-athletes.
But it definitely leaves some lingering questions about transparency and accountability in college sports.
Balancing Competition and Transparency
State Rep. Jackie “Coach” Hayes has some worries about keeping things fair for South Carolina’s athletic programs. He pointed out that schools in other states sometimes have bigger budgets and can spend a lot more on their athletes.
The bill is pitched as a way to help South Carolina stay competitive in college sports. It’s not just about money—it’s about making sure the playing field doesn’t tilt too far one way.
For more details on this developing story, you can read the full article here.
- Schools Covered
- College Football Articles
- Men's College Basketball Articles
- Men's College Soccer Articles
- Women's College Basketball Articles
- Olympic Athlete Articles
- Men's College Baseball Articles
- College Sports Media Professionals Articles
- Hall of Fame Member Articles
- Former College Player Articles
- Game Previews
