Summary continued
South Carolina is moving closer to joining a growing list of states seeking to keep payments to college athletes out of public view, a shift lawmakers argue is meant to protect student-athletes and stabilize competition while the NCAA has not imposed nationwide standards for NIL disclosures.
The proposal comes after the South Carolina Senate approved a bill Tuesday, following House passage last month with two “no” votes, and lawmakers said final action could come after a hearing next week. At the Statehouse this week, multiple senators told lawmakers they did not want to wade into broader fights about how athletes should be compensated, but said they could not support leaving their in-state programs behind if other states adopt differing disclosure rules.
Senators who backed the bill said the secrecy is necessary to avoid putting South Carolina schools at a competitive disadvantage. They said that if competitors know exactly what athletes are being paid, those schools could make higher offers and “lure away” more of a roster, and they warned that even publishing the total amount spent could allow opponents to infer payrolls and stir internal conflict over how much different teams or athletes receive.
Republican Sen. Chip Campsen said the changes surrounding college sports had been extreme, telling lawmakers, “I think we have taken a wrecking ball to college sports. I played two sports, and I think it’s been a horrible radical change,” while noting his experience as a defensive back at The Citadel and discussing how NIL and other changes have reshaped the sport’s landscape.
Democratic Sen. Russell Ott said he understood the competitive argument even as he criticized it. “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 during debate, as opponents argued that secrecy would reduce accountability and make it harder to understand whether public money is distributed fairly.
Supporters pointed to the precedent of secrecy rules in other states. The legislation mirrors approaches already used in places including Arkansas, Utah, Colorado and Kentucky, according to the AP report, and many states have considered or passed NIL-related measures since the start of 2025, while some universities have refused to publish contracts citing student privacy laws.
The effort gained momentum after a lawsuit tied to Freedom of Information Act requests. Frank Heindel, the open-government advocate who filed the case against the University of South Carolina after the school refused to release payment details, said the lack of disclosure keeps the public from verifying how money is allocated and can leave athletes without information they can use in making decisions about their futures.
Heindel told senators that without transparency, the public cannot confirm whether football receives, as he put it, “$18 million while women’s sports receive $500,000,” or whether one position group is paid dramatically more than another. “We are asked to simply trust that public money is being distributed fairly, without any ability to verify it,” Heindel wrote in a statement provided to senators, and a judge put his lawsuit on pause to see whether the General Assembly would pass a law this session.
School officials cited privacy concerns in supporting the bill as well. Clemson athletics director Graham Neff wrote that the agreements include “highly sensitive personal and financial information,” and said that “Subjecting these agreements to public disclosure would raise serious privacy concerns for our student-athletes, potentially exposing them to undue public scrutiny and creating risks well beyond the playing field,” according to the text provided to lawmakers. Heindel said he was “fine with redacting any personal information,” arguing that redaction could address privacy while still allowing accountability.
Opponents also argued that secrecy blocks athletes from understanding what they are worth in the market. Patrick Rishe, director of the sports business program at Washington University in St. Louis, said secrecy prevents athletes from knowing their true value and helps keep arrangements that encourage rule-bending. “The competition for top talent is so ruthless that universities and boosters want some degree of lawlessness,” Rishe said, and he added that state legislatures will keep pushing into college sports disputes until the NCAA and Congress establish uniform standards.
Sen. Tom Young shepherded the bill through the chamber, and lawmakers said they called for a hearing next week to press athletic directors for more information, including whether state money flows into athletic programs before the bill advances further, potentially to the governor.
Republican Sen. Michael Johnson, an Auburn graduate, argued that protecting South Carolina teams should fall to state lawmakers even if it helps athletes in other ways elsewhere. “As an Auburn graduate, I’m thrilled to get you information and pick through and get your best athletes,” Johnson said. “But as someone who understands what’s good for the game, I tend to support this bill.”