BYU-I Sports

The SAFE Act—Supporting Athletes, Fairness, and Equity Act—is Senate Democrats’ counterproposal to the House’s SCORE Act. Its odds of passage are slim, but its provisions reveal an alternative vision for the future of college sports—one that emphasizes equity, athlete protections, and the survival of women’s and Olympic sports.

What the SAFE Act Proposes

The most significant change would amend the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, allowing college conferences to pool media rights the way professional leagues do. Today, individual conferences and schools cut their own deals, which has helped the SEC and Big Ten dominate financially. Under the SAFE Act, pooling rights would increase bargaining power, stabilize revenue, and give the NCAA authority to oversee fair distribution.

The bill would also impose rules on how games are broadcast. Football and basketball could not be locked up exclusively by one network. Instead, rights would need to be shared, and broadcasters would be forced to cover women’s and Olympic sports or risk forfeiting rights altogether.

Athlete protections are another key piece. The SAFE Act would:

• Guarantee scholarships for up to ten years after eligibility.
• Provide five years of post-eligibility medical coverage.
• Allow two penalty-free transfers.
• Establish an agent registry with a five percent fee cap.

Finally, the bill would override state NIL laws, creating a national standard. Collectives would have to show a “valid business purpose” for deals, which the NCAA would review. Oversight would fall to the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general.

Supporters and Opponents

Supporters include NCAA leadership, who gain authority to coordinate pooled rights; advocates for women’s and Olympic sports, who see guaranteed funding and visibility; and some mid-major schools, who would welcome the stability of collective bargaining power.

Opposition is fierce from the SEC and Big Ten, which profit from independent mega-deals, and from broadcasters who dislike losing exclusivity and being forced to carry lower-rated sports. Republicans in Congress also oppose the bill, preferring the SCORE Act’s focus on liability protection and freedom from broadcast mandates. Athlete labor advocates, meanwhile, criticize the SAFE Act for refusing to classify athletes as employees.

The SAFE Act faces a steep climb. It lacks bipartisan support and would require 60 Senate votes to pass—a tall order in today’s polarized environment. Its practical role may be to pressure Republicans into amending the SCORE Act by spotlighting athlete protections and equity issues.

What It Means for BYU–Idaho

For a school like BYU–Idaho, the SAFE Act represents a model that values broad-based sports opportunities over narrow, football-first spending. Its mandates to protect women’s and Olympic sports align with Title IX values and send a clear signal: any future athletic program must be balanced, equitable, and sustainable.

If intercollegiate sports ever return to Rexburg, they would do so in a system more closely resembling the SAFE Act than the SCORE Act. That means a framework where scholarships, health care, and equity are non-negotiable, and where women’s and Olympic sports are not optional add-ons but core to the mission. For BYU–Idaho, that vision fits naturally with the university’s emphasis on community, discipleship, and opportunity for all.