Plan to make colleges NIL revenue-share money secret gets time out in SC Senate

The amount of money South Carolina universities pay intercollegiate athletes in NIL deals from its athletic revenues could be kept secret from the public under a fast-tracked bill the state Senate initially passed Tuesday.

But it hit a snag Wednesday afternoon after Majority Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, raised concerns over universities sending public dollars into its athletic program. He said lawmakers were under the impression only money made by universities’ athletic programs, like through media rights or ticket sales, were used for NIL revenue-sharing deals.

“I think we need to know if they’re transferring that kind of money into those accounts that could then be used for payments,” Massey told reporters. “That’s a problem if they are.”

The University of South Carolina and Clemson University gave millions of dollars to its athletics programs last year, according to the 2025 NCAA financial reports. Where the funding comes from, and how it is spent, is not clear from the reports.

The bill was contested on the necessary third reading of the bill, and the legislation won’t go to the desk of Gov. Henry McMaster for final approval until the bill is voted on.

Why did Senate call a timeout on the bill?

House and Senate lawmakers including Sen. Tom Young, R-Aiken, steering the fast-tracked bill said NIL revenue-sharing money came from money generated from the athletic departments or funds not allocated to the university by the General Assembly.

But Massey, the Senate Majority leader, told his chamber he was concerned universities were funneling public dollars into their athletics programs, which could go towards revenue-sharing agreements, reading from a news report published Tuesday. The Post and Courier reported Clemson’s athletics program received $20 million in “direct institutional funds” from the university in fiscal year 2025.

Clemson’s athletics program received $20.18 million in “direct institutional funds” from the university, which could include state funds or tuition revenue, according to a 2025 NCAA financial report obtained by The State. The report covers the year ending June 30, 2025, before NIL-revenue sharing began.

The University of South Carolina athletics program received nearly $42.6 million in “direct institutional support” from the university, according to its 2025 NCAA financial report.

NIL revenue-sharing did not begin in the NCAA until July 1, 2025, so spending on the category may begin this fiscal year.

University of South Carolina spokesperson Jeff Stensland said tax dollars or student tuition funds are not being used to pay student athletes. He said “true operational support” to transition to the “new business model” for collegiate sports totaled $29.3 million last fiscal year. Other funds from the university went to tuition abatement, scholarship reimbursement and a broadcast and video control room, he wrote in an email.

Clemson athletics spokesperson Jeff Kallin said the direct institutional support money went toward rising costs associated with nutrition and training programs and building up new teams, in addition to waivers. He also said the financial support from the university was only a small portion of the athletic program’s revenue.

He said the athletics department has not yet decided whether to create a separate account for NIL revenue-sharing agreement payments.

Senators said they wanted to be assured state dollars would not be spent on NIL revenue-sharing deals before giving the bill a perfunctory reading, which is necessary for it to become law. The bill was contested Wednesday by Sen. Ross Turner, R-Greenville, according to the Senate’s Thursday calendar.

Senators will hear from universities’ athletic departments about the funding concerns next Wednesday, Feb. 25, state Sen. Greg Hembree, R-Horry, said Thursday.

Measure initially had little opposition in Senate

The Senate initially passed the bill 30-13 Tuesday afternoon.

Proponents said keeping South Carolina universities payments to athletes exempt from open records laws would keep athletic programs, like Clemson or USC, competitive and protect privacy. But lawmakers concerned with the legislation, including Gov. Henry McMaster, say it prevents transparency.

McMaster has been open about his concerns with the legislation. Last week, he told reporters the money paid to athletes should be transparent.

“I would ask the legislature and the universities to find some way to see that there is adequate disclosure because you cannot have secret funds,” McMaster told reporters Feb. 10. “You can’t have secret money like that in a public institution.”

When asked Feb. 10 if he would veto the bill, McMaster said he would look at it.

“In regard to H. 4902, Governor Henry McMaster will fully and thoroughly review the bill once it reaches his desk,” McMaster spokesperson Michelle LeClair wrote in an email to The State after the Senate vote Tuesday.

Under the NCAA settlement enabling universities to pay student athletes, schools participating in revenue-sharing are allowed to spend up to $20.5 million in the 2025-26 school year on payments. The revenue comes from money generated by the school’s athletic departments.

A provision in the measure would also keep secret how that $20.5 million is divided among the athletic programs.

Separate Name, Image and Likeness deals between students and private organizations are already private. Student athletes can strike NIL deals with organizations such like Ascend Carolina, a Gamecock Club subsidiary, and Clemson athletics’ revenue-generating affiliate, Clemson Ventures. The millions available in NIL money from those “private organizations” are on top of the $20.5 million the universities can pay athletes.

Young, the Aiken senator, said Tuesday failing to pass the bill this year would put the University of South Carolina and Clemson University at a competitive disadvantage on the football field next season.

“This will allow our schools to remain competitive,” Young said. “I’m telling you, if we don’t pass this, we won’t get back here quick enough next session.”

“When it becomes the December signing day in college football, and we’re not able to compete because we have allowed the disclosure of this information, I’m telling you, we will be, you will be getting calls and I will be getting calls,” Young continued.

On Wednesday, Young said he would try and get answers about how public money was used to pay NIL revenue-sharing deals.

“I will endeavor to do all I can to get some answers to the questions that have been raised here today,” Young said.

Students can still shop schools and share their payments with other universities, state Sen. Russell Ott said Tuesday. He said the bill would change little without reform of revenue-sharing money from the federal government or the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

“They [student athletes] just want to get as much money as they possibly can get, and now they’re going to be able to leverage this system because they know there’s going to be no public disclosure,” Ott said.

The House passed the legislation 111-2 on the third day of session without any public hearings. The Senate held a hearing last week on the bill but only accepted written public testimony.

The legislation rushed through both chambers after a lawsuit filed in Richland County requested information on revenue-sharing payments made by the University of South Carolina to its student athletes.

Open records advocate Frank Heindel asked USC how it doled out revenue-sharing money to its student athletes last year. The university denied the request, and Heindel filed a lawsuit in state court last September over the public’s right to the information. Heindel argued that since the universities were a party to the revenue-sharing NIL contracts, the state’s NIL law made how the contracts were paid public record.

Judge Daniel Coble of Richland County put a hearing on whether USC was required to share its payments on hold at the request of the General Assembly and USC last month. If the bill becomes law, Heindel and the public would not have a right to the information.

Reporters Chapel Fowler and Joseph Bustos contributed reporting

This story was originally published February 17, 2026 at 4:00 PM.