Judge in FOIA suit against USC wants more info about $20.5M shared with athletes
A judge has ordered that the University of South Carolina must provide the court more information about the $20.5 million in revenue being shared with student-athletes.
Frank Heindel, a South Carolina freedom of information advocate, filed a lawsuit against USC on Sept. 30 for withholding information about its revenue-sharing program. Its secrecy, Heindel said, is “legally untenable.” The judge’s order was issued at a preliminary hearing Friday.
Heindel sent USC a request for public records under South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act on Sept. 4. He asked for any revenue-sharing contracts, agreements or memorandums of understanding between the university and its football players.
The university denied the request six days later. Heindel was told that the records he requested were considered “scholastic records” and protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a federal law that shields a student’s educational records from disclosure. Therefore, the FOIA coordinator said, there were no records responsive to his request.
The lawsuit asks that a court either order USC to turn over the records in their entirety, or hold a confidential hearing to determine what might be exempt from disclosure.
“This response contains a clear contradiction,” Heindel told Fifth Circuit Judge Daniel Coble. “If the records are scholastic and exempt ... the records exist. If no records are responsive, then nothing exists to exempt. Both cannot be true.”
If the university truly insists that no records exist, Heindel said, someone else must be controlling and executing the $20.5 million program on its behalf. Heindel’s request covered those types of entities, too.
“USC’s memorandum also tries to recast my request as seeking name, image and likeness, or NIL licensing agreements with third-party sponsors,” Heindel said. “That is incorrect.”
USC Athletics Director Jeremiah Donati announced in June that beginning July 1, the university would be able to distribute up to $20.5 million in revenue directly to our student-athletes. It was the result of the landmark House v. NCAA settlement, which includes the NCAA shelling out $2.8 billion in back pay over the next 10 years. Each school that opted into the settlement, including USC, was permitted to pay its athletes a combined $20.5 million in 2025-26.
This is separate from NIL contracts, which are private endorsements using private money and are exempt from public disclosure.
USC’s student-athletes are still permitted to make money through NIL deals with private companies, as they have been for several years.
Heindel cited a June interview between 257 Sports and Donati, who said the university was getting ready to execute contracts under the House settlement, some of which meant transferring contracts from Garnet Trust, the Gamecocks’ official NIL collective, to the university.
“The only plausible explanation for USC to claim that no records exist is that the university has attempted to shield those agreements behind a third party to avoid scrutiny,” Heindel said.
Attorney Andrew Lindemann argued on the university’s behalf, saying it had lawfully and accurately responded to Heindel’s records request.
The university had said that there were no documents responsive to his specific request, Lindemann told the judge. There are no revenue-sharing contracts between USC and football players, he said, but there are NIL licensing agreements, which are protected from public disclosure. However, the university is not party to those contracts.
Judge Coble, who is the grandson of longtime South Carolina Attorney General Daniel McLeod, said he wanted the university to flesh out some of the things mentioned in the affidavit it filed, which said it had publicity contracts for athletes, but they wouldn’t be released.
He ordered an “in camera review” of the records, or a private review, to see whether a third, university-affiliated party, might be involved in the contracts.
In the 1991 case, Weston v. Carolina Research and Development Foundation, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that if a private body was supported by and expended public funds, it is subject to state FOIA law.
“These are not trivial administrative documents,” Heindel wrote. “Transparency in such contracts is essential to ensure accountability in the use of taxpayer-supported athletic revenues.”
Heindel also sued USC for failing to respond to public records requests in 2019. In exchange for dropping his lawsuit, the university promised to fix their FOIA system, streamlining the process.
This story was originally published October 10, 2025 at 1:11 PM.
