South Carolina Senate Panel Moves Forward with NIL Secrecy Bill Amid College Athlete Revenue Debate
In a rapidly moving legislative push, a South Carolina Senate panel advanced a controversial bill on Wednesday that would shield from public view how much money college athletes - and their athletic departments - are receiving from newly allowed revenue-sharing agreements. The bill, which cleared the House earlier in the week by a staggering 111-2 vote without a single committee hearing, now heads to the full Senate for consideration.
At the heart of the issue is South Carolina’s response to a high-stakes shift in the college sports landscape. Following a $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement, schools that opted into the agreement are now allowed to directly pay student-athletes from athletic revenue - a historic change that redefines the amateurism model that had governed college sports for decades.
This school year, universities are permitted to pay out up to $20.5 million in total athlete compensation under the deal, with that cap increasing annually over the next ten years. But here’s the catch: under current South Carolina law, any contract involving public universities - like those revenue-sharing agreements - is subject to public records laws. That’s where lawmakers are stepping in.
The proposed legislation would carve out an exemption, ensuring that these revenue-sharing payments remain confidential. Supporters argue it’s a move South Carolina has to make to stay competitive. No other state currently requires public disclosure of these athlete compensation figures, and lawmakers say revealing those numbers could put in-state programs like South Carolina and Clemson at a recruiting disadvantage.
“If we think that the alleged texting of recruits after a deadline that Coach Swinney complained about is a problem, you wait if we don’t pass this bill and these contracts become public,” said Sen. Tom Young, R-Aiken. “We’re going to be the only state in the country allowing that, and our constituents are going to be howling at us to do something.”
But not everyone is on board.
Sen. Everett Stubbs, R-York, voiced strong reservations, questioning whether the bill sacrifices transparency in the name of competitive balance.
“These are compensation packages,” Stubbs said. “And even if they’re coming through a different revenue stream, I still think that when public colleges receive those funds, it’s classified as state funds.”
Governor Henry McMaster, who has previously backed transparency in NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) deals, struck a cautious tone when asked about the legislation. While he expressed concern about the lack of disclosure, he stopped short of saying whether he would veto the bill if it lands on his desk.
“There has to be public disclosure of money coming into a public institution,” McMaster said. “Now how they do it in order to protect the competitive part of this equation is important, but that’s what I’m looking for.”
Wednesday’s Senate Education Committee hearing didn’t include public testimony - a byproduct of the bill’s fast-tracked path through the legislature - but senators did review written statements from stakeholders on both sides of the debate.
Coastal Carolina University athletic director Chance Miller submitted a letter in support of the bill, saying it strikes the right balance between protecting athlete privacy and maintaining institutional transparency. From his perspective, the legislation is about evolving with the new era of college sports - one where athletes are finally being compensated, but where competitive equity still matters.
On the other side, longtime media lawyer Jay Bender, formerly of the South Carolina Press Association, delivered a scathing critique. In a written statement, Bender called the bill a “betrayal” of the state’s commitment to open government. “This legislation invites and endorses secret government activity on a grand scale,” he wrote, arguing that there’s no rational reason to hide how public institutions distribute these newly available funds.
Senate Education Committee Chairman Greg Hembree, R-Horry, acknowledged the discomfort the bill brings, even for supporters. But he framed it as a necessary adjustment in a quickly shifting national landscape.
“You may not like it,” Hembree said to his colleagues. “But we have to accept the reality of it and protect those athletes and protect their privacy and kind of evolve with the rest of the country on this, even though we may not like it.”
As the legislation moves to the full Senate, the debate is far from over. What’s clear is that South Carolina - like the rest of the college sports world - is navigating uncharted territory, where the lines between amateurism, professionalism, and public accountability are being redrawn in real time. And as lawmakers weigh transparency against competitiveness, the decisions made in Columbia could ripple far beyond state lines.