South Carolina Governor Vetoes Bill Keeping College Athlete Pay Secret

Governor says legislation fails to balance privacy rights and public's right to know how public funds are spent

Mar. 11, 2026 at 11:18pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster has vetoed a bill that would have allowed the state's public colleges to keep secret the payments made to student-athletes. The legislation aimed to exempt 'any and all' records of these payments, both to individual players and entire teams. However, McMaster argued the bill went too far and failed to properly balance the privacy rights of student-athletes with the public's right to know how public funds are being spent.

Why it matters

This veto is significant as it highlights the ongoing debate around transparency and the public's access to information about how taxpayer-funded institutions, like public universities, are compensating student-athletes in the wake of new rules allowing them to profit off their name, image and likeness. The governor's decision means the legislature will now have to decide whether to override the veto and keep the payment details secret or make them public.

The details

The bill, which passed the state legislature earlier this year, would have allowed South Carolina's public colleges to withhold information about how much they pay student-athletes, both individually and by entire sports teams. Colleges argued this was necessary to protect their competitive interests. However, in his veto message, Governor McMaster said the legislation 'presents a conflict' and 'fails to balance' the privacy rights of athletes and the public's right to know how public funds are spent.

  • Governor McMaster vetoed the bill on March 11, 2026, just hours before his midnight deadline to act on the legislation.
  • The bill initially passed the state House of Representatives almost unanimously in the first week of the 2026 legislative session, bypassing the committee process.
  • The bill then passed the state Senate with a 30-13 vote, with all 'no' votes coming from Republicans, before concerns prompted further review.

The players

Governor Henry McMaster

The Republican governor of South Carolina who vetoed the legislation that would have kept payments to college athletes secret.

University of South Carolina

A public university in South Carolina that was sued by a businessman seeking information about name, image and likeness payments made to Gamecock football players.

Clemson University

A public university in South Carolina whose athletics director testified before the state Senate about the school's plans to spend the full $20.5 million allowed for athlete payments.

Coastal Carolina University

A public university in South Carolina whose athletics director said only two of its 19 sports teams generally receive a share of revenue from name, image and likeness payments.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“This legislation presents a conflict between serious concerns and a clear principle. On the one hand are the privacy rights of student-athletes and the competitive interests of our state's collegiate athletics teams on the other hand is the right of the people to know how public funds are being spent.”

— Governor Henry McMaster

“If everyone knows your number in one sport, they would take their money in another sport, put it in there and try to get a competitive advantage.”

— Chance Miller, Athletics Director, Coastal Carolina University

What’s next

The South Carolina legislature will now have to decide whether to override Governor McMaster's veto, which would require a two-thirds majority vote in both the state House and Senate. The House is expected to easily clear that hurdle, but reaching the supermajority threshold in the Senate could be more challenging.

The takeaway

This veto highlights the ongoing tension between transparency in how public universities spend taxpayer funds and the desire of colleges to protect competitive advantages and the privacy of student-athletes. The outcome will set an important precedent for how other states handle similar debates over the disclosure of name, image and likeness payments to college athletes.