South Carolina Senate Bill S0809

South Carolina 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/14/26

Caption

Mandatory Background Checks in Youth Sports

Summary

S0809 would create a new chapter in Title 63 of the South Carolina Code requiring youth sports organizations to conduct background checks on all coaches. The bill defines “youth sports organization” broadly to cover private for-profit and nonprofit organizations whose core function is providing sports opportunities to people under 18, and it defines “coach” to include employees and volunteers serving as coaches, managers, or supervisors, while excluding only occasional or nominal assistance. Under the bill, every covered coach would have to undergo a state fingerprint-based background check through SLED and a federal fingerprint-based background check through the FBI. The required screening would also include checks of child abuse and neglect registries, DSS records, sex offender registries, and equivalent out-of-state registries for states where the person lived during the prior five years. The bill also authorizes SLED and the FBI to retain fingerprints and share updated criminal-history information with the youth sports organization, and it places the cost of the FBI check on the requesting individual or entity. Organizations may consider pardoned convictions and related circumstances when deciding whether someone is fit to coach. The bill’s legal impact would be to impose a new statewide compliance requirement on youth sports organizations and to expand the background-screening obligations associated with youth athletics. It would not create a new licensing system, but it would require organizations to adopt screening procedures before allowing coaches to serve, and it would give them access to broader criminal and child-protection information than a simple name-based check. The act would take effect upon the Governor’s approval. The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and caption is protective and preventive, focusing on child safety in organized sports. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislators or stakeholders in the available materials. The bill appears designed to reduce risk by ensuring that adults working with minors in sports have been vetted through multiple state and federal databases. The main point of potential contention is the breadth and burden of the screening requirement. Possible concerns include the cost of FBI fingerprint checks, administrative burdens on small or volunteer-run organizations, privacy issues related to fingerprint retention and ongoing information sharing, and the bill’s allowance for organizations to consider pardoned convictions. Supporters would likely emphasize child protection and consistency across youth sports programs, while critics may focus on implementation costs and the scope of the background-check mandate.

Impact

This bill would add Chapter 2 to Title 63 of the South Carolina Code and impose a new statutory duty on youth sports organizations to require background checks for all coaches. It would require fingerprint-based checks through SLED and the FBI, plus child abuse, neglect, and sex offender registry checks, and would authorize fingerprint retention and future information sharing by law enforcement agencies. The bill would directly affect private youth sports organizations, coaches, volunteers, and entities paying for or administering the checks.

Sentiment

The bill’s overall tone is strongly child-protective and safety-oriented, with an apparent goal of preventing abuse or misconduct in youth sports. No committee debate or vote history is provided, so there is no documented legislative split in the available record. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a straightforward public-safety requirement rather than a controversial policy change, though it likely raises practical concerns for organizations that would have to implement and pay for the checks.

Contention

The most likely areas of contention are the cost and administrative burden of mandatory fingerprint-based screening, especially for smaller or volunteer-led youth sports groups. Privacy and data-retention concerns may also arise from the authorization for SLED and the FBI to retain fingerprints and provide ongoing updates, including arrests and other information. Another possible dispute is the bill’s instruction that organizations may consider pardoned convictions and pleas when evaluating fitness to coach, which could be viewed as either a necessary safety measure or an unfair barrier to participation.