SCORE vs. SAFE: The Federal Showdown Shaping Athlete Compensation
Originally published on October 21, 2025
The House v. NCAA settlement reshaped college athletics by opening the door for direct revenue sharing between institutions and athletes, a profound departure from the NIL-only framework of the past three years. Institutions are now facing the operational, financial and compliance demands of distributing a share of its athletics revenues directly to athletes.
Yet even as institutions implement these changes, there’s a challenge: There are no national rules to guide how this should work. Each state is still playing by its own NIL laws, and institutions are left patching together governance on the fly. Congress is now stepping in, debating how to set national guardrails with two very different proposals: the SCORE Act and the SAFE Act.
Both bills aim to bring order to the system, but in very different ways. Here’s what leaders need to know.
The SCORE Act
The SCORE Act, backed primarily by House Republicans, is pitched as a way to bring stability by creating a single national framework.
- National NIL standards: No more state-by-state patchwork. SCORE would wipe away conflicting state laws and replace them with one federal standard. For compliance offices, this offers clarity but also removes flexibility.
- Guardrails on revenue sharing: The bill directly intersects with the House settlement by creating an association-set uniform dollar cap for revenue sharing.
- Athlete protections with limits: SCORE does offer protections like scholarship security and post-eligibility health coverage. However, they’re within a tightly defined framework that limits athlete rights in other areas (such as transfer freedom).
- Antitrust safe harbor: NCAA and conferences get immunity for decisions made within the act’s rules, reducing legal exposure but cementing federal oversight.
- Non-employee status: Perhaps most critical for institutions, the bill explicitly bars athletes from being classified as employees. That’s meant to shut down the labor law and unionization questions looming in other venues.
For campus leaders, SCORE represents predictability. Compliance becomes easier and budgets are protected from student-fee pressures. But it also means power is centralized at the top, potentially widening the gap between the richest conferences and everyone else.
The SAFE Act
On the other side, Senate Democrats have proposed the SAFE Act (text not yet on congress.gov, details per sponsors’ briefings and major-outlet reporting), which takes a more athlete-centered and equity-driven approach.
- Expanded athlete rights: SAFE goes further than SCORE by guaranteeing two penalty-free transfers, ten years of scholarship protection and five years of medical coverage after eligibility. These provisions would reshape athlete expectations around recruitment and retention.
- Collective media rights: SAFE would allow conferences to pool and sell their TV rights together. That’s a structural change designed to spread revenue more evenly, giving mid-majors a stronger footing against institutions in the Power 4 conferences.
- Reinvestment requirements: Any new dollars generated through pooled media or other revenues must flow back into women’s sports, Olympic programs and broader equity initiatives.
- Crackdown on NIL collectives: SAFE tightens the rules to ensure NIL deals reflect real endorsement value, not disguised pay-for-play.
SAFE is about leveling the playing field. For institutions outside the Power 4, it offers a path to stay competitive. But it also introduces heavier compliance obligations and long-term financial commitments that may strain athletic budgets and require new funding models.
SCORE Act vs. SAFE Act: Key Points at a Glance
| Category | SCORE Act (House GOP Proposal) | SAFE Act (Senate Democratic Proposal) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Focus | National uniformity and governance stability | Athlete rights, equity and revenue redistribution |
| NIL & Revenue Sharing | Federal preemption of state NIL laws; uniform dollar cap for revenue sharing tied to athletics revenues; regulates agents and contracts to discourage pay-for-play while preserving “true NIL” endorsement deals | Authorizes collective media rights sales to redistribute revenues more evenly (reinvestment of new dollars into women’s and Olympic sports); places tighter oversight on NIL collectives to ensure payments reflect genuine endorsements, not recruiting inducements |
| Athlete Protections | Scholarship guarantees; 3 years post-separation medical coverage; 16 varsity sports minimum | Broader protections: 10-year scholarships, 5 years medical coverage, transfer flexibility |
| Institutional Finance | Limits use of student fees at major programs | Creates new long-term financial obligations and equity-based reinvestment requirements |
| Governance & Power | Centralizes authority with NCAA/conferences; non-employee classification for athletes | Expands athlete rights; more oversight of NIL collectives |
| Employment Classification | Explicitly states athletes are not employees of schools, conferences or the NCAA | Silent on employment; leaves classification to courts and regulators |
| Antitrust Provisions | Creates safe harbor; NCAA and conferences shielded from most antitrust suits | No blanket immunity; only targeted protection to allow collective media rights pooling |
| Potential Risks | Could widen gap between high- and low-resource programs | Increased compliance burden and cost pressures |
| Litigation Outlook | Safe harbor may reduce but not eliminate lawsuits | Broader scope may invite different legal disputes |
Why This Matters for Higher Education Leadership
Neither bill is just a sports story. Both reshape the institutional business model of athletics in ways presidents, athletic directors, CFOs and board members can’t ignore.
Key questions to ask on your campus right now:
- How will federal restrictions on subsidies, mandated athlete benefits and revenue distribution rules impact multi-year financial projections?
- Where is your institution’s strategy most aligned – with the stability promised by SCORE or the equity goals of SAFE?
- How prepared is your institution to demonstrate compliance with any potential reporting obligations under either bill?
- How will you message these changes to athletes, recruits and boosters, so expectations are realistic?
The Crossroads Ahead
Congress won’t settle these debates overnight. But institutions that prepare now by modeling both scenarios, engaging boards early and shaping advocacy positions will be best positioned to lead.
Because whether it’s SCORE, SAFE or some hybrid of the two, one thing is clear: The post-House era isn’t just about sharing revenue with athletes. It’s about sharing control of the system and deciding who gets to write the next chapter of college sports.
James Moore’s collegiate athletics CPAs and consultants are helping athletic departments, finance leaders and university presidents and chancellors navigate regulatory change, model the financial impacts of revenue sharing and design strategies for long-term sustainability. Connect with our team today to ensure your institution is ready to lead through the next chapter of college sports.
All content provided in this article is for informational purposes only. Matters discussed in this article are subject to change. For up-to-date information on this subject please contact a James Moore professional. James Moore will not be held responsible for any claim, loss, damage or inconvenience caused as a result of any information within these pages or any information accessed through this site.
