This post builds on my earlier blog titled “SCORE Act Advances in Congress, While President Trump Issues an Executive Order,” which examined the advancement of the SCORE Act and President Trump’s Executive Order 14322. That blog explored how both initiatives aim to establish a national framework for Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights in collegiate athletics, with the SCORE Act and the Executive Order generally favoring the interests of the NCAA and its member conferences, potentially at the expense of student-athletes.
As federal NIL legislation continues to evolve, this post compares the newly proposed SAFE Act with the SCORE Act to highlight key differences in their approach to athlete rights, institutional oversight, and regulatory enforcement. The SAFE Act and the SCORE Act offer starkly different visions for regulating NIL rights. While both aim to establish federal standards, they diverge significantly on major issues like antitrust exemptions for the NCAA and the employment status of athletes.
SAFE Act Overview (Student Athlete Fairness and Enforcement Act)
Unlike SCORE and most other recent legislative developments in college sports, the SAFE Act comes from Senate Democrats. Led by Senate Commerce ranking member Maria Cantwell, along with Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal, the SAFE Act is an all-encompassing federal proposal aimed at protecting student-athletes and reforming college sports governance. Key provisions include:
- Federal NIL Rights: Establishes a national standard, replacing the patchwork of state laws.
- Health & Safety Protections: Mandates standards for brain injuries, heat exertion, asthma, and provides five years of post-eligibility medical coverage.
- Scholarship Guarantees: Ten-year scholarship security after eligibility expires regardless of athletic performance or injury.
- Agent Regulation: Caps agent fees at 5% and requires registration with states and the NCAA, and a “private right of action” for athletes to sue agents.
- Media Rights Reform: Amends the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 to allow schools to pool media rights, which they cannot do now due to a Supreme Court case on the subject. The idea is that this would generate significantly more revenue for everybody, thus giving schools the funds to pay football players, pay coach buyouts and continue to fund women’s and Olympic sports programs.
- Transfer Flexibility: Allows athletes to transfer twice without sitting out and return to college after entering the draft.
- Privacy Protections: NIL contracts are protected from public disclosure without an athlete’s consent.
- Enforcement: Grants oversight authority to the FTC and state attorneys general.
- International Athletes: The Act finally and thankfully address the visa and employment authorization issues for international student-athletes engaging in NIL deals, ensuring that international athletes in the U.S. on student visas will be authorized to participate in NIL activities. The bill modifies the F-1 student visa to create a new subcategory that would allow international student-athletes to receive NIL compensation without affecting their visa status.
Comparison: SAFE Act vs. SCORE Act
| Feature | SAFE Act | SCORE Act |
| NIL Rights | Federal standard; athlete-friendly | Federal standard; more institutional control |
| Employment Status | Silent on athlete employment | Explicitly prohibits athletes from being classified as employees |
| Antitrust Protections | No broad exemptions | Provides antitrust shields for NCAA and conferences |
| Media Rights | Allows pooling to benefit all schools | Does not amend Sports Broadcasting Act; favors existing power structures |
| Health & Safety | Strong protections, including post-eligibility coverage | Offers limited health benefits (e.g., 2 years coverage) |
| Scholarships | 10-year guarantee | No long-term scholarship guarantee |
| Transfer Rules | More flexible (2 transfers, draft return) | Maintains NCAA control over eligibility and transfers |
| Oversight & Enforcement | FTC and state AGs | NCAA and new College Sports Commission (CSC) |
| Revenue Sharing | Preserves 22% cap from House v. NCAA settlement | Allows NCAA to modify revenue-sharing metrics |
Conclusion
In statements released following the bill’s introduction, Senator Cantwell says the bill would “help smaller schools compete” and would provide every school a “fair shake” as opposed to only the “biggest, richest schools” benefitting. Senator Booker says the legislation is a “stark contrast” to the “harmful” SCORE Act.
Republican Senator Ted Cruz has stated that there’s a “zero percent” chance the SAFE Act passes. Zero. He added that he is working on bipartisan legislation with other Senate Democrats.
The SAFE Act and SCORE Act represent two distinct paths for federal NIL legislation. The SAFE Act prioritizes athlete rights, health, and equitable revenue sharing, while the SCORE Act reinforces NCAA governance and institutional stability. As Congress debates these proposals, the future of college sports—and the balance of power between athletes and institutions—hangs in the balance. Meanwhile, the current system will continue to evolve, and the courts will continue to referee disputes.
