Lawsuit seeks breakdown of how USC is divvying up $20.5M for student-athletes
A South Carolina freedom of information advocate has sued the University of South Carolina to obtain the school’s deals to share more than $20 million with its student-athletes.
According to the lawsuit filed Sept. 30 in Richland County, the state’s flagship university has denied that it has any records of these multi-million dollar deals, and whatever records they might have would be shielded by a law that protects students’ academic records.
The university’s justification for its secrecy is “contradictory and legally untenable,” wrote Frank Heindel, a former grain merchant and open records advocate.
“I’m not asking for names or grade point averages. I’m asking how a public university spends public money,” Heindel told The State.
Heindel sent USC a request for records under South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act on Sept. 4. In it, Heindel requested any executed revenue-sharing contracts or agreements between the university and its football players. Six days later, the university denied the request in an email stating that the documents were “scholastic records” protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a federal law that shields a student’s educational records from disclosure.
“Therefore, there are no records responsive to your request,” wrote the school’s FOIA coordinator.
A share of millions
Heindel’s push for these records comes as schools around the country have begun programs to offer student-athletes a share of the millions of dollars they make from athletics each year. That new wrinkle was the result of the landmark House v. NCAA settlement, that includes the NCAA shelling out $2.8 billion in back pay over the next 10 years.
Each school that opted into the settlement is permitted to pay its athletes a combined $20.5 million in 2025-26, with increases each year after. South Carolina — along with most every other school in the SEC, ACC, Big 10 and Big 12 — are expected to fully fund that $20.5 million.
Prior to the settlement, student-athletes were permitted to make money through their name, image and likeness (NIL) with many of the payments coming through an NIL collective — which essentially collected money from fans and boosters and doled it out as compensation for student-athletes attending events, signing autographs, etc.
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.
That could be true. It could also be true that South Carolina used one of its privatized arms — such as The Gamecock Club (USC’s booster club) to handle the payments, knowing they wouldn’t be subject to the same FOIA laws.
When South Carolina agreed to a partnership with Blanchard CAT in August, resulting in a sponsored field logo at Williams-Brice Stadium, The State also submitted a FOIA for that contract. South Carolina claimed to not possess that contract, saying it was maintained by Learfield, the company in charge of its athletics marketing.
Like The Gamecock Club, Learfield is a private company not subject to the same FOIA laws as the University of South Carolina.
What Heindel wants
In his lawsuit, Heindel asked that a judge either order USC to turn over the records in their entirety or hold a confidential hearing to determine which parts might be exempt from disclosure.
“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.”.
In his lawsuit, Heindel cited comments from women’s basketball coach Dawn Staley to argue that these contracts were purely commercial.
“I stay within the ... revenue share budget that we have ... We play games for money, and that money goes directly to our players,” Staley said earlier this year. This was proof, Heindel argues, that USC’s athletic department treats the contracts as an institutional expense.
“Nobody is making any bones bones these aren’t commercial contracts,” Heindel told The State.
This isn’t Heindel’s first time with either FOIA lawsuits or suing USC. He’s been filing FOIAs since 2000 and in 2019 Heindel sued USC for failing to respond to FOIAs. In response, the university promised to fix how it responds to records requests. In exchange for Heindel dropping his lawsuit, USC centralized the process of responding to records requests in order to streamline the process.
A hearing on Heindel’s lawsuit has been scheduled for Friday, Oct. 10.
This story was originally published October 7, 2025 at 5:00 AM.