SC Colleges Don’t Have to Disclose Payments to Athletes — For Now

Courtesy of South Carolina Daily Gazette

 Legislation allowing South Carolina’s public colleges to keep secret what they pay student athletes is now law after legislators voted to override a veto by Gov. Henry McMaster.

The Senate voted 30-12 Wednesday to force enactment of the bill that exempts from public records law details of how schools distribute to athletes a share of profits from media, ticket sales, and sponsorship agreements.

That Senate followed a vote of 88-22 in the House, giving the General Assembly the required two-thirds vote in both chambers.

The override means colleges only have to disclose their total payout to all athletes schoolwide, rather than payments to individual athletes or on a team-by-team basis — at least for now.

In his pitch to override the governor, Sen. Tom Young told his fellow senators that the NCAA is expected to require all member schools, starting next year, to make sport-specific disclosures in the annual financial reports they file with the athletics association.

South Carolina’s athletics programs have vowed to support and abide by this proposed change, the Aiken Republican said.

But the state’s colleges need a shield in the interim, Young argues, as signing for football begins the first week of December.

“Our schools are still going to be at a competitive disadvantage if the information is not protected later this year, when they are in their recruiting cycles,” he said.

McMaster, in his first veto of 2026, said the team-level exemption went too far. Federal student privacy laws protect an individual student’s records and information.

“This is where South Carolina should draw the line, too,” McMaster wrote in his veto message.

But the General Assembly opted to wait until the NCAA or Congress acts to level the playing field.

Similar laws have passed in five other states: Louisiana, Kentucky, Utah, Arkansas and Colorado.

South Carolina’s legislation is a response to a public records lawsuit filed against the University of South Carolina by a Mount Pleasant businessman seeking information about payments made by the school to Gamecock football players.

Frank Heindel sued last September after the college denied his request through the state’s Freedom of Information Act for details about how USC is distributing to athletes its share of profits from media, ticket sales, and sponsorship agreements.

Last June, a federal judge approved a settlement of a long-running lawsuit between players and universities which paved the way for colleges to directly pay athletes. It allowed each college to share up $20.5 million in annual revenue with its students.

Those total payments will increase 4 percent annually under the settlement agreement.

Athletics directors from the University of South Carolina and Clemson University told senators last month that each school will spend the full $20.5 million.