As students and parents looked over their tuition bills this summer, they saw the usual items one would expect to pay for in college: housing fees, the cost for classes and the option to add things such as a parking pass or meal plans.
An area that many students, including third-year finance student Jaime Letofsky, took notice of was the increased athletic fee. The fee surprised Letofsky, who then called the bursar’s office to have the updated fee explained to her.
Letofksy was not the only student on campus who felt confused as to what their money was going to, with several other students that The Daily Gamecock interviewed also not knowing what the fee was or that it even existed.
Understanding the athletic fee
The University of South Carolina increased its mandatory athletic fee to $150 per semester — $300 per academic year — which all students are required to pay. South Carolina had previously introduced an athletic fee back in 2007 of $52 per semester, but this price increased over the summer.
The money will go to enhancing the student experience at all home venues for Gamecock athletics, according to Executive Associate Athletic Director Charles Bloom.
“We're going to work at enhancements for students at games,” Bloom said. “Looking at facility upgrades, and we're just trying to make the student fan experience as good and meaningful as possible.”
The athletic fee will also go to other services such as continued student access to athletics events, ticket lotteries and increased programming operating costs, according to Associate Vice President for University Communications Jeff Stensland.
Several ways the athletic department plans to improve the student experience for football games are by having discounted waters in the second half for students in the lower level or food combos for students at a cheaper price, something that the upper section would receive.
Bloom said the funds raised by the fee will not be used for the newly announced renovations to Williams-Brice Stadium, coaching contracts or anything related to NIL.
The University of South Carolina was not the first school to introduce an athletic fee. Other Southeastern Conference schools, such as Georgia, began charging $53 per semester in the spring 2025 semester, and Florida began charging $38 per semester as of the 2025-26 academic year.
Clemson also recently introduced its own athletic fee in 2024 of $150 per semester. Similar to South Carolina’s fee, it is aimed at maintaining the upkeep of athletic facilities used by students and student-athletes. It also does not go to NIL or student-athlete revenue sharing.
Up until 2007, South Carolina did not require students to pay an athletic fee, but now, due to the increased demand for college athletics, the fee has gone up, Bloom said.
“It's important to note that we were not charging student fees for many years,” Bloom said. “And the cost of intercollegiate athletics is increasing. The operating costs are getting higher and (so are) the demands on the product.”
However, Bloom said that just because there has been a rise in interest in what is happening in the field, doesn’t mean the people in the stands shouldn't benefit either.
Bloom wants to continue to try and put students first, even with growing interest in the product on the field.
“It helps to put a quality product on the field (or) on the courts,” Bloom said. “But also to have a quality product for our fans and the students. So, it's important to have that game-day atmosphere that attracts people to come to our games.”
Bloom said the athletic department understands how expensive it can be to go to college and get a quality education, and that a goal of the athletic department is to make sure students get the most out of what they are paying for.
"Student fees aren't taken lightly," Bloom said. "We're definitely aware how much it costs to go to school and how much it costs to get a quality experience ... We just want to make sure that you're getting — you're getting a value."
Another goal of the athletic department is to create a meaningful experience for not only students but student athletes as well, and a way to accomplish this is to have students come out to all home sporting events, Bloom said.
“We in the athletic department look at one of the major goals that we have is to make meaningful experiences for our student athletes,” Bloom said. “And when you can look into the crowd as a student athlete and see a big crowd and a lot of students, that's impactful.”
Students weigh in
The Daily Gamecock interviewed 48 students to find out their opinions on the rise in the athletic fees. Twenty-six believed that the fees were not needed, and 13 thought it was fair that the fees went up over the summer. The remaining nine students either had mixed feelings or didn't answer the question.
Many students needed additional context as to what the fee was or had no idea that the fee was even on their tuition bill when first asked about the increase in athletic fees.
The fee had students such as first-year computer science student Thomas Sitnik and his mother wondering what the fee was when paying his tuition bill for the year.
First-year exercise science student Chloe May said she was surprised that the fee went up over the summer despite the increase in student enrollment.
“I think it's kind of surprising that it increased, especially since the amount of people who’ve gotten accepted into the school has increased,” May said. “You would think that the prices are going down, but they're actually going up, so I guess that doesn’t really make sense.”
First-year biology student Shirley Chapman said the university should have been more transparent about where the money was going to avoid confusion.
Some students, such as first-year English student Gabby Goding said the fees are fair since they are benefiting the people who are paying them. Goding also mentioned how the university's athletics played a role in her college decision process
“I mean, if it's going back to benefit the students, I feel like that's a fair increase since it's going right back into the student experience that you're getting out of the school,” Goding said.
Third-year accounting student Joshua Cancro, third-year exercise science student Caroline Orr and second-year interdisciplinary studies student Rithi Ramamurthy all said they believe there are other aspects of campus that would have benefitted from $300 more than the athletic department.
Cancro said the funds could be used to help student-led organizations, such as club sports, as he is a member of the club rugby team. Cancro also said that fan and student-led events are what make the game day environment unique.
“The bigger game experience, especially at South Carolina, it's the tailgates that are ran by students or fraternities or sororities,” Cancro said. “A lot of the stuff the school already does is fine. I don't really see any need to improve it.”
The School of Visual Art and Design is another part of the university that both Orr and Ramamurthy said could benefit from the $300 more than the athletic department.
“It would be really nice just to see some of the arts programs get the same level of benefits that athletics does,” Orr said. "I think it's great that we're spending money on athletics, but it would be nice to have a breakdown to know exactly where that money is going."
Students were asked if the athletic fee should apply to every student, given that not all students attend home athletic events.
Fourth-year psychology and media arts student Eve Griffin said it's fair that the fee applies to all students, and compared it to how taxes work, while second-year elementary education student Emily Daniel said an opt-out feature would work well for students who aren’t interested sports.
First-year theatre student Scout Varvel said the fee should not even exist, because students are already paying so much for college as it is.
“I don't think it's really necessary, especially since we have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to go here in the first place,” Varvel said. “Even with tons of scholarships, I still had to pay $15,000 a year, so I think it's kind of an unnecessary fee that we don't need to have added on there."
Editor's note: Jaydon Ford also contributed to reporting.