A transparency debate in college sports is unfolding as South Carolina lawmakers fast-track legislation that would allow universities to withhold distribution details of $20.5 million in revenue-sharing payments to student-athletes.
In 2025, Richland County filed a lawsuit seeking access to USC's financial records, requesting disclosure of allocations and asking the court to determine whether the public has the right to see how the university distributes its money. Following this suit, South Carolina House Representatives quickly advanced legislation that would shield the allocation of funds to student-athletes.
Despite the bill’s overwhelming support through the House, the passage of the bill in the Senate was put on hold. On Feb. 25, athletic directors from USC, Clemson and Coastal Carolina made statements at the bill’s first public hearing, after initial rulings advanced the legislation without public input.
This newfound athletic funding stems from a recent National Collegiate Athletic Association settlement that allows Division I schools to make direct payments of up to $20.5 million annually to athletes, beginning in the 2025-26 academic year. USC declined to release details of its revenue sharing contracts, prompting criticism that it violated the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act.
FOIA grants the public access to government records, including financial documents, to ensure government transparency. Since USC is a public institution, open-records advocates argue that contracts detailing how the university distributes revenue to student-athletes should be public.
Joe McCulloch, an attorney and sports law professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, said this dispute reflects longstanding legal tension between transparency and privacy.
“South Carolina has a long history of our courts siding in favor of transparency when you're talking about public funds,” McCulloch said. “The public has a right to know how their money is being paid.”
Although highlighting the importance of governmental transparency, McCulloch also acknowledged the validity of the university’s recruiting concerns. He compared the competitive disadvantage South Carolina schools would face to playing cards while revealing your strategy to opponents.
“It’s a situation where you go to play poker or bridge, but you get your hand, and you start to deal, but you’ve got to show everybody at the table what you're holding,” he said.
Officials stated that releasing athletic financial agreements would threaten recruiting efforts and put USC at a competitive disadvantage, especially since South Carolina is the only state required to disclose such information. With the knowledge of how much players are being offered, universities with the highest bids would be substantially advantaged. Similarly, supporters of the bill cite concerns about athletes' safety if their private information becomes public record.
When questioned at the Senate hearing on Feb. 25, USC athletics director Jeremiah Donati said broader transparency nationwide could, in general, be beneficial, but he warned against South Carolina proceeding unilaterally.
“We see abuse and breaches of fiduciary duties to these young men and women,” Donati said. “I think having more transparency there across the country would be welcomed by our colleagues at other schools, but without that, we certainly wouldn’t want to be the first in.”
Backing the proposal, during the hearing, Sen. Darrell Jackson framed the issue as one affecting real students rather than only concealing financial figures.
“Some of my colleagues have heard me say this — it is really good to consider legislation, but it’s better to put faces on legislation, to know who the people are that we are talking about and how it impacts their lives,” Jackson said.
His remarks highlighted supporters’ concerns that public disclosure of revenue-sharing agreements could affect student-athletes personally by violating their privacy and putting their safety directly at risk.
Individuals opposing the bill argue that, although the funds originate as private funds, they become public as soon as a public university receives them; therefore, their financial records should be subject to transparency laws. The debate intensifies amid questions about whether taxpayer dollars or tuition funds could be directly supporting these revenue-sharing payments.
Opponents of the legislation assert that the public’s right to access those records becomes even stronger if public funds enter athletic department accounts before the department distributes them to athletes.
While lawmakers debate the legal and competitive implications, second-year political science student Maya Poljak said tuition-paying students deserve transparency in how the university distributes its funds.
Poljak said shielding revenue-sharing contracts could change how students perceive the university’s accountability.
“It probably would definitely be in the back of my mind,” she said. “Knowing that they might be doing stuff with the money I’m paying that doesn’t impact me and that I don’t know about.”
Poljak added that rising tuition costs make the issue more concerning.
However, she questioned whether the financial structure of the university reflects balanced priorities. She pointed out that out-of-state students often pay significantly higher tuition to attend prestigious academic programs, such as USC’s highly ranked international business school. Meanwhile, athletes receive substantial compensation for playing sports.
In her view, this creates a noticeable imbalance in how financial resources are distributed for students pursuing academics in comparison to athletic resources.
She said she wants lawmakers to clarify whether the university could eventually use tuition dollars to fund revenue-sharing payments.
“I would just ask if there's any point in the near future where that would actually be a reality," Poljak said.