South Carolina lawmakers moved to limit what the public can learn about payments to college athletes, setting up a new fight over transparency in college sports as the state weighs sending the bill to Gov. Henry McMaster.
The bill comes as senators described frustration with the broader changes in college athletics, including pressures tied to name, image and likeness deals, transfers and the role of the NCAA in defining what can be shared and what must remain private. While several senators said they did not want to wade into the rules governing athlete compensation, they said they were responding to concerns about whether their state’s teams would be left behind.
During debate at the Statehouse, senators discussed keeping secret the amounts of money given to athletic teams and players once the Senate initially approved the bill on Tuesday. The House had already approved the proposal last month with two “no” votes, setting up the measure for further action during the General Assembly’s 2026 session.
Sen. Chip Campsen, a Republican, said he believed “we have taken a wrecking ball to college sports,” citing his own experience and arguing that the changes had been radical. Supporters and other lawmakers who backed the bill argued that leaving the issue unresolved before the session ended in May could produce outcomes they viewed as worse than a disappointing run of seasons at South Carolina’s Gamecocks and Clemson’s Tigers.
Supporters framed the secrecy as a competitive necessity. They said that if other schools knew exactly what athletes were getting paid, they could make higher offers and lure away much of the roster. Even limiting disclosure to the amounts spent on each team, supporters said, could still allow opponents to extrapolate payrolls or create pressure over how different teams are funded.
Democratic Sen. Russell Ott said he understood the competitive disadvantage argument. “We are going to be putting our schools and our athletic programs at a competitive disadvantage. I get it. I don’t have to like it,” Ott said, according to the reporting. Opponents argued the measure cuts the public off from verifying whether payments are being allocated fairly, particularly when state money is involved.
The debate also drew on a patchwork of state laws already in place or being considered elsewhere. The reporting said Arkansas, Utah, Colorado and Kentucky keep NIL deals out of public records laws, and that many universities have declined to publicly release contracts, citing student privacy laws. Several senators urged the NCAA to set rules nationally that would determine what can be revealed or kept secret.
Senators also discussed the circumstances that helped move South Carolina on a faster timeline. An open government advocate sued the University of South Carolina in September after the school refused to release payment details under a Freedom of Information Act request, and a judge put the lawsuit on pause to see whether the General Assembly passed a law this session. Frank Heindel, who filed the suit, argued in a statement to senators that the public would not know whether football received $18 million while women’s sports received $500,000, or whether compensation for position groups varied widely. Heindel also said the public would be asked to trust that public money was being distributed fairly without checks that would allow verification.
Schools and athletic directors backed the secrecy proposal in part on privacy grounds. Coaches did not lobby in person during the compressed timeline, but the reporting said letters from athletic directors described the agreements as containing “highly sensitive personal and financial information.” Clemson athletics director Graham Neff wrote that exposing the agreements could raise serious privacy concerns for student-athletes, potentially exposing them to public scrutiny and creating risks beyond the playing field. Heindel said in response that he was fine with redacting personal information.
Another concern raised during the debate was whether athletes could judge their own market value if compensation details remain shielded. Patrick Rishe, director of the sports business program at Washington University in St. Louis, said secrecy prevents athletes from knowing their true market value and that it can encourage schools to skirt rules as they did decades ago, when compensation was handled informally. Rishe said states would continue to press into college sports and that disputes could keep turning to courts until the NCAA can get Congress to act on uniform standards.
In remarks that reflected the support for state-level protection of in-state teams, Sen. Michael Johnson said it would be up to legislatures to safeguard their home-state programs. “As an Auburn graduate, I’m thrilled to get you information and pick through and get your best athletes,” Johnson said, according to the reporting. “But as someone who understands what’s good for the game, I tend to support this bill.” He said the competitive dynamics of college sports make it important for states to regulate how much information is available.
Senators scheduled a hearing next week to ask athletic directors for more information about whether state money goes into athletic programs before a final vote that could send the bill to the governor.