USC official says publicity contracts for athletes exist, but won’t be released
The University of South Carolina has continued to deny that it holds any contracts governing how the university will divide millions between its student-athletes. But while a recent court filing by a university official admitted that the school is in possession of publicity contracts for student-athletes, it doubled down on its assertion that they do not need to be disclosed to the public.
This admission came as part of an affidavit submitted by Hilary Cox, USC’s executive associate athletics director for strategic initiatives.
The affidavit was filed in a Richland County circuit court in advance of a hearing on a freedom of information request submitted by an open records advocate seeking the university’s revenue sharing contracts with its football players. The contracts dictate how the state’s flagship university will divide up an estimated $20.5 million settlement pool among its players.
Frank Heindel, a former grain merchant and Freedom of Information Act advocate, filed the lawsuit on Sept. 30 after the university denied his request for the contracts.
The university initially claimed that the contracts were “academic records” and therefore protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a federal law that shields a student’s educational records from disclosure. As a result, the university replied that there were “no records” responsive to Heindel’s request.
In her affidavit, Cox said that the university was “not in possession of nor aware of” any revenue-sharing contracts like those described by Heindel.
However, Cox did say that the university did possess so-called name, image and likeness (NIL) licensing agreements between its players and third-parties. But the school itself was not a party to any of those contracts, Cox said. Under South Carolina law, if a university is not a party to these contracts, they are not considered public records.
Because the NIL licensing agreements are not considered public records “and are also not “public records” because they are scholastic records, the University correctly responded to Mr. Heindel that ‘there are no records responsive to your request,’” Cox said.
The NIL contracts govern money that comes in from the use of an athlete’s “personal brand” for commercial purpose, for instance appearing in an advertisement.
The NCAA allowed students athletes to make money through NIL contracts before a court settlement in June of this year that created the $20.5 million settlement pool. In the past, many of the payments came through an NIL collective, which collected money from fans and boosters and paid out to players as compensation for work including attending events or signing autographs.
Earlier this year, The State submitted a FOIA request for all invoices from South Carolina’s NIL Collective, The Garnet Trust. After nearly three months, the school claimed it did not possess any responsive documents.
A hearing on Heindel’s FOIA request is scheduled for Friday, Oct. 10.
This story was originally published October 10, 2025 at 5:00 AM.