A SAFE vision for college sports? Analyzing the SAFE Act
This article was written and published by Katie Lever. Dr. Katie Lever is an award-winning novelist, full-time editor, and freelance sports writer who resides in Austin, Texas. In 2023, she received her Ph. D in communication studies from the University of Texas, where she studied college sports policy. She enjoys writing about and watching sports, weightlifting, and reading in her free time. Dr. Lever is not a lawyer, so her policy analyses do not constitute legal advice. Read her work and buy her book here.
With name, image, and likeness (NIL) and revenue-sharing reform reshaping the business of college sports, Congress is once again attempting to define the rules of the game. How lawmakers reconcile these priorities could determine the next chapter of college athletics.
Recently, a new player entered the game: The SAFE Act.
What is the SAFE Act?
The Student-Athlete Fairness and Enforcement (SAFE) Act is a Democrat-led bill sponsored by Maria Cantwell (D-WA) which aims to protect women’s and Olympic sports by rewriting the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, to allow collegiate athletic conferences the right to pool broadcasting rights. The idea is that by allowing conferences to work together to share revenue, smaller schools will be able to amass more funding that they could distribute across more sports, therefore leveling the playing field between the Power 4 and the rest of the NCAA in terms of recruiting and maintaining athletic talent. If passed, the bill would give college sports the same antitrust exemption that the NFL enjoys, further blurring the line between collegiate and professional sports in an increasingly professionalized era of collegiate athletics.
What is in the SAFE Act?
The bill is divided into 11 titles ranging from NIL to media rights to international student visas. Important provisions include:
Reaffirming NIL rights for college athletes and protects athletes’ grants in aid from being revoked based on NIL earnings.
Prohibiting universities and conferences from using the NIL of a group of students without permission
Establishing guardrails around collectives and their involvement in the NIL space via reporting protocols and enabling universities to prohibit deals with collectives that do not have a valid business purpose (essentially prohibiting “pay for play”)
Including transfer and draft protections and limitations (e.g. two-time transfer limit)
Enhancing health and safety provisions, including protocols for brain injuries, heat-related illness, and rhabdomylosis, measures to prevent abuse and mistreatment of athletes, post-eligibility insurance, and limits on coaches’ influence on an athlete’s return to play following an injury.
Prohibiting coaches from influencing or retaliating against an athlete’s major of choice, networking opportunities, and internships
Prohibits institutions from discriminating the allocation of such provisions on the basis of sex
Prohibiting the NCAA and its conferences from interfering with the use of sponsored uniform jerseys and patches for business purposes (if the university provides the same number of scholarships and roster spots for women’s and non-revenue generating sports as it did in the year 2023-2024)
Establishing an Office of the Athlete Ombuds to help athletes understand their rights and report violations of titles outlined in the SAFE Act
Prohibits athletes from using university facilities, logos, or uniforms to earn NIL money without permission from their university
Requires athletes to report their endorsement agreements to their institution within five business days of signing a contract
Establishes requirements for endorsement contracts and agreements with sports agents
How does the SAFE Act compare to the SCORE Act?
There is noticeable overlap in several areas of the two bills. Notably, both bills would preempt existing state-level legislation surrounding NIL. Both are operating on the basis of an antitrust exemption and have key benefits–the pros of both bills is that SAFE Act and the SCORE Act both address athlete health and safety, NIL, and scholarship protections, among other provisions. However, the bills also differ in notable ways.
The SAFE Act notably does not include an antitrust exemption for the NCAA like the SCORE Act does. Instead, the SAFE Act is rewriting existing antitrust legislation surrounding media rights, which primarily concern the conferences. The SAFE Act also does not address the employee status of athletes at all, unlike the SCORE Act, which prohibits athlete employee status. The SCORE Act also does not prohibit the abuse of athletes, which falls in line with the NCAA’s enforceable policies, which fail to expressly prohibit athlete abuse and mistreatment, whereas the SAFE Act addresses this issue.
In essence, the SAFE Act and the SCORE Act represent two competing visions for the future—one emphasizing athlete protections and sustainable business practices, the other prioritizing regulatory clarity for schools and the NCAA. Which vision will advance farthest has yet to be seen.
As of now, the future of college sports legislation is uncertain, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that change is inevitable. As lawmakers, universities, and stakeholders continue to negotiate the terms of that change, the next few months could determine not only how college sports are governed, but who ultimately benefits from reform.
Dr. Katie Lever is an award-winning novelist, full-time editor, and freelance sports writer who resides in Austin, Texas. In 2023, she received her Ph. D in communication studies from the University of Texas, where she studied college sports policy. She enjoys writing about and watching sports, weightlifting, and reading in her free time. Dr. Lever is not a lawyer, so her policy analyses do not constitute legal advice. Read her work and buy her book here.
