The South Carolina Senate took up a bill that would keep details of a college athlete’s revenue-sharing contract details out of the public record.
On Jan. 16, the House passed H.4902 that would amend South Carolina’s code of laws related to name, image and likeness (NIL) laws for intercollegiate athletes.
Under current law, a college or university does not have to publicly disclose details of a student athlete’s NIL contract if the school is not listed as a party in the contract. However, a school is often listed as a contract party in a revenue-sharing contract, which allows schools to distribute part of their athletics revenue to a student.
Part of the reason lawmakers are considering a tweak to the state’s NIL laws is in response to a lawsuit filed against the University of South Carolina in September 2025.
According to court filings, plaintiff Frank Heindel filed a Freedom of Information Act Request to the university seeking access to revenue-sharing contracts between the school and its football players. Heindel’s request was limited to instances where the school was listed as a as a contracting party, which makes the contract details eligible for public disclosure.
The school had denied his documents request, citing the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act, leading Heindel to take legal action. A judge has yet to rule on the case pending action taken by the South Carolina legislature that could impact the state’s laws.
The bill, which passed a second reading by the Senate on Feb. 17, would make it so a higher learning institution does not have to disclose details of its student athlete revenue-sharing contracts, regardless of whether it is a party in that contract. Documents related to the negotiation process with a college athlete would also stay confidential.
The bill has already passed the House with overwhelming support.
Supporters of the bill argue that requiring South Carolina universities to disclose how much they are paying their college athletes is putting them at a competitive disadvantage against other schools looking to recruit the same athletes. Rep. Tom Young, R-Aiken, presented the bill to the Senate and said some states, like Kentucky and Louisiana, already have a version of this bill in place.
Part of the concern with the bill, however, is that it would keep allow the flow of public tax dollars to be kept out of the public record.
Sen. Tom Corbin, R-Greenville, questioned why the salary ranges of employees at a school like Clemson University are publicized while the dollars that a student athlete might make through a revenue-sharing agreement would be kept private.
“The taxpayers do foot the bill for the tools necessary for these people (athletes) to earn their living,” Corbin said. “But yet, we’re asked to change the rules for the athletes.”
According to Young, state law does not allow its higher education institutions to use public funding to cover revenue-sharing agreements like it allow for public funding to cover staff salaries.
How did the Upstate delegation vote on the bill?
The bill passed a second reading in the Senate in a 30 to 13 vote. The bill will still need to pass a third reading before it officially clears the Senate, after which it will head to the governor.
Of the 12 members of the Senate who represent parts of Greenville, Spartanburg and Anderson counties, five senators voted for the bills: Sens. Rex Rice, R-Pickens, Ross Turner, R-Greenville, Danny Verdin, R-Laurens, Jason Elliot, R-Greenville, and Karl Allen, D-Greenville. The five senators voted against bill were Corbin, Lee Bright, R-Spartanburg, Shane Martin, R-Spartanburg, Josh Kimbrell, R-Spartanburg, and Michael Gambrell, R-Anderson.
Sens. Harvey Peeler, R-Cherokee, and Richard Cash, R-Anderson, did not cast a vote on the bill.
Bella Carpentier covers the South Carolina legislature, state, and Greenville County politics. Contact her at bcarpentier@gannett.com