Imagine a world where the NCAA, student-athletes, broadcast networks, agents, and Congress all sit down at the same table and agree on a single, fair solution for college athletics. Sounds like a fantasy, right? Well, it might be closer to a miracle than reality. The ongoing debate between the SAFE Act and the SCORE Act has exposed deep divisions that make a unified federal bill seem like a distant dream. But here’s where it gets interesting: these two proposals couldn’t be more different, and their clash reveals the core challenges of balancing power, money, and fairness in college sports.
In late September 2025, Senate Democrats Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Cory Booker (N.J.), and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) introduced the Student Athlete Fairness and Enforcement (SAFE) Act. This bill emerged as a direct counter to the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act, which had gained traction in a House subcommittee over the summer but has since stalled. While the SCORE Act has the backing of the NCAA and major conferences like the SEC, the SAFE Act is championed by labor groups and athlete-centric organizations like Athletes.org. The fundamental difference? The SAFE Act prioritizes athlete rights and broader access, while the SCORE Act aims to protect the NCAA’s existing structure.
But here’s where it gets controversial: The SAFE Act proposes radical changes that could reshape college athletics entirely. Let’s break down its key provisions:
- Collective Conference Media Rights Pooling: The SAFE Act would amend the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 to allow conferences to negotiate media rights deals collectively. This could maximize revenue and support Olympic sports, but it also raises questions about how smaller conferences might fare in such a system. 2n Increased Viewing Access for Fans: It would prohibit broadcast networks from placing football and basketball games behind paywalls, ensuring they’re available on local channels. Networks would also need to broadcast women’s and Olympic sports or risk losing some media rights. A win for fans, but could it hurt networks’ bottom line?
- Transfer Limits: Athletes would be allowed only two penalty-free transfers, a move that could stabilize rosters but might restrict athletes’ freedom to pursue better opportunities.
- Guaranteed Scholarships: Scholarships would be guaranteed for 10 years post-eligibility, providing long-term security for athletes.
- Post-Eligibility Medical Coverage: Athletes would receive five years of medical coverage after their eligibility ends, addressing a critical gap in current protections.
- Agent Registry and Fee Caps: The SAFE Act would create a certification process for agents and cap their fees at 5%, down from the current 20% or more. A fair deal for athletes, but will agents push back?
- Uniform Federal NIL Rights: It would establish a national standard for Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights, replacing the current patchwork of state laws. A much-needed simplification, but will it satisfy everyone?
- Codifying the House Settlement: The bill would solidify revenue-sharing caps and oversight by the College Sports Commission, ensuring transparency but potentially limiting flexibility.
And this is the part most people miss: While the SCORE Act shares some similarities, like a national NIL standard, its core provisions are designed to protect the NCAA’s interests. For instance, it explicitly prevents college athletes from being classified as employees, limits transfers to one penalty-free move, and provides antitrust protections for the NCAA. Essentially, it seeks to maintain the status quo, shielding the NCAA, conferences, and schools from legal challenges over employment and compensation.
However, the SCORE Act isn’t entirely anti-athlete. It requires schools with athletic revenue over $20 million annually to maintain at least 16 varsity sports and provide benefits like mental health programs and medical coverage. It also caps agent fees at 5%, mirroring the SAFE Act in this regard.
Despite the SCORE Act’s advancement in the House Energy & Commerce subcommittee in July, its momentum has waned, and the SAFE Act now poses a significant challenge. With these two bills pulling in opposite directions, the likelihood of Congress passing a comprehensive federal law anytime soon seems slim.
Here’s the burning question: Can we ever bridge the gap between protecting the NCAA’s model and prioritizing athlete rights? Or is the current system too entrenched to change? Let us know your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
