An NIL bill that has already moved through the legislature is suddenly facing pushback. The bill would keep specific NIL revenue-sharing details out of public view..The hesitation directly affects heavyweights like Clemson and South Carolina because what’s happening at the Statehouse could reshape how transparent big-time college football really is.

The South Carolina Senate passed H.4902 on second reading with a 30-13 vote on February 17, with one abstention. It had already passed the House weeks earlier. But now, as the measure nears Gov. Henry McMaster’s desk, lawmakers are second-guessing whether they’re headed in the right direction. Some are even contemplating sending it back to committee. 

Under current state law, schools don’t need to let the public know their NIL contract details. That is if they’re not listed as a party. But revenue-sharing contracts are different. If a university distributes athletic revenue directly to athletes, it usually becomes a contracting party. So, those agreements are potentially subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). That’s what this bill aims to close but critics aren’t going to let that happen easily. 

The flashpoint was when a lawsuit was filed in September 2025 against South Carolina. Plaintiff Frank Heindel submitted a FOIA request seeking revenue-sharing contracts between the school and its football players, specifically where the university was listed as a contracting party. The university denied the request, citing Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) which prompted Heindel to sue. Proceedings were paused while lawmakers acted and six weeks later, the bill was through both chambers.

Rep. Tom Young, R-Aiken, warned senators that leaving payment details in the open would hand rivals a blueprint. As he noted, Kentucky and Louisiana already have similar protections.

News served to you like never before!

Prefer us on Google, To get latest news on feed

Prefer Us on Google

“This is South Carolina,” he said. “Football – and to some extent, basketball and baseball –  is something we care a whole lot about.”

If Clemson or South Carolina has to show how much they’re paying athletes, better-funded competitors gain leverage. They could start offering better deals that could even lead to more tampering. But others are arguing that the public has a right to know how public institutions are distributing revenue. If taxpayers fund the university, shouldn’t they know where the money goes? It’s quite a dilemma. 

And then there’s Gov. McMaster in an equally tense state. One side, he’s warned against harming the state’s flagship programs. On the other side, he said NIL is “ruining college sports.” His stance on secrecy is even clearer.

“I would wish the universities would find some way of adequate disclosure,” he said. “You cannot have secret funds or secret money like that in a public institution.”

He hasn’t promised a veto but he also hasn’t promised a signature. While that uncertainty keeps this case alive, it’s worth noting that this debate didn’t start in Columbia.

What Nick Saban said about NIL transparency

Rewind to 2022, when Alabama’s Nick Saban and Texas A&M’s Jimbo Fisher went public with their NIL feud. The Tide head coach accused the Aggies of having “bought every player.” Their head coach shot back hard.

“I have nothing to hide,” he said. “I have nothing to hide. And our program has nothing to hide. Be interesting if everyone could say that.”

Nick Saban, for his part, wasn’t anti-NIL but was anti-secrecy. 

“I’m all for players making as much as they can make,” he said back then. “I also think we’ve got to have some uniform transparent way to do that.” 

It was then that ESPN decided to put that idea to the test. It requested NIL-related details from 23 universities. The response was limited and even Nick Saban’s Tide declined to release information. Texas A&M said it would provide hundreds of records and didn’t. And now, in 2026, South Carolina finds itself in the middle of the same transparency debate Nick Saban once talked about. Only this time, it’s lawmakers who are deciding whether to give the green or red signal. 

Clemson and South Carolina are scouring through a legal and political battlefield during the week. The final vote may be perfunctory and the governor’s decision may be cautious but this debate will linger.