SAFE Act and College Sports: How NIL Reform Could Reshape the Game
By Beyond NIL | October 2025
A Turning Point in College Athletics
A new federal proposal known as the SAFE Act is making waves in the college sports world. The legislation, introduced by Senate Democrats Richard Blumenthal and Cory Booker, aims to redefine eligibility and athlete mobility by allowing college players to enter professional drafts and return to school, as well as transfer twice without losing eligibility.
Supporters see the bill as a necessary modernization of NCAA rules—one that gives the college athlete more freedom and security by addressing their rights and welfare through federal oversight. Critics, however, warn it could disrupt team stability and widen the gap between major programs and smaller schools.
In an era dominated by Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) opportunities, the SAFE Act could represent one of the most consequential shifts in college athletics in decades.
What the SAFE Act Proposes
1. Draft Returns with Eligibility Protection
One of the most groundbreaking features of the SAFE Act is that college athletes would be allowed to declare for professional drafts—such as the NFL or NBA—and still return to their college programs if they don’t sign a pro contract. This provision is especially significant for football players and basketball athletes, as these sports are governed by strict national regulations and have established rules within collegiate athletics.
This reform challenges the long-standing rule that once an athlete declares for a draft, they lose amateur status. The proposed flexibility would create a safety net for athletes testing professional waters without ending their college careers prematurely. This change has a major impact on football players and basketball athletes, who often face early draft decisions and play a central role in national competitions and the broader structure of college sports.
2. Two-Time Transfers Without Penalty
Currently, athletes who transfer more than once risk losing eligibility or must rely on NCAA waivers. The SAFE Act would guarantee eligibility for two-time transfers, offering more freedom for players navigating academic or athletic opportunities elsewhere. Increased transfer flexibility could also impact the allocation and stability of roster spots within college teams, as coaches may need to adjust to more frequent roster changes and ensure equitable opportunities for student-athletes.
A recent federal court ruling temporarily blocked the NCAA from enforcing its ban on double transfers—an indication that federal intervention may be inevitable.
3. A Broader Push for Federal NIL Reform
Cody Campbell, Texas Tech booster and co-founder of Saving College Sports, has become one of the leading advocates for comprehensive NIL reform. He argues that fragmented state nil laws and other state laws have created confusion and inconsistency, as colleges, universities, and other institutions each have their own NIL rules and compliance platforms. This decentralized process of creating NIL rules has led to a patchwork of regulations, with each institution and university developing its own approach.
Additionally, NIL collectives often generate deals for athletes at specific schools, operating independently from the institutions. The SAFE Act aligns with that vision by preempting existing state nil laws and state laws, creating a unified national standard. This could serve as a foundation for broader governance reform in college athletics.
Why the SAFE Act Matters in the NIL Era
More Flexibility for Athletes
Athletes would have greater leverage under the SAFE Act—testing drafts, transferring twice, or negotiating NIL deals without risking their eligibility. The Act gives athletes greater control over their eligibility, transfers, and NIL opportunities, allowing them to better manage and benefit from their personal brand. This creates new strategic and financial opportunities, especially for top-performing players.
New Dynamics for Collectives and Boosters
NIL collectives could gain fresh leverage in recruitment, using draft return clauses or transfer flexibility to attract top talent. But they’ll also need to manage greater financial uncertainty and evolving eligibility rules.
Recruiting Shifts for Programs and Coaches
More permissive transfer rules could accelerate a short-term recruiting mindset, where coaches prioritize immediate performance over long-term development. This could reshape roster management and the culture of college teams.
Legal and Compliance Implications
The SAFE Act also brings regulatory complexity. It could intersect with antitrust laws, Title IX, and broadcasting contracts, introducing new legal and compliance challenges for athletic departments and collectives alike. The SAFE Act and similar proposals have been challenged by various stakeholders and face potential legal obstacles, including court challenges and opposition from affected parties. As the legal landscape evolves, new restrictions and enforcement mechanisms will be necessary to ensure compliance. Additionally, the interests of the NCAA and other organizations may shape the final form of the legislation, as these entities seek to protect their institutional and financial priorities.
Risks and Unintended Consequences
Every major reform brings tradeoffs. Here are the key concerns surrounding the SAFE Act:
Team cohesion: Easier transfers could erode loyalty and roster stability.
Exploitation risk: Agents or collectives might push players into premature draft declarations.
Academic disruption: Frequent transfers could delay graduation or affect academic standing.
Resource imbalance: Well-funded programs could dominate, leaving smaller schools behind.
Legislative ambiguity: The final details—eligibility limits, timing rules, and return conditions—will determine how athlete-friendly the law truly is.
Protecting non-revenue and women's sports: It is crucial to focus on protecting non-revenue and women's sports from unintended consequences that could threaten athletic opportunities and scholarships.
Learning from the past: Similar reforms in the past have resulted in both positive and negative outcomes, highlighting the need to carefully consider potential impacts.
Having a plan: Stakeholders should have a clear plan to address potential risks and ensure the long-term health and sustainability of college sports.
Considering the other side: The legislative debate includes the SAFE Act and alternative proposals like the SCORE Act, each representing different approaches to athlete rights and NCAA regulation.
Stay informed: It is important for all involved to stay informed about ongoing legislative and regulatory developments to effectively navigate changes in college athletics.
Strategic Takeaways for NIL Stakeholders
1. Scenario Planning for NIL Deals
Programs and collectives should prepare contract models that account for potential draft returns or multiple transfers. Flexibility will be key to maintaining compliance and trust.
2. Education and Advising
Athletes need clear guidance on the risks and rewards of testing the draft or transferring. Programs should invest in education to prevent costly mistakes.
3. Governance Advocacy
Stakeholders should continue pushing for clear antitrust protections, uniform NIL standards, and oversight transparency—to prevent confusion and uneven enforcement.
4. Institutional Adaptability
Schools that quickly adjust their roster strategies, NIL partnerships, and scholarship frameworks will be better positioned to compete in a rapidly evolving landscape.
5. Risk Mitigation
Collectives should include exit clauses and eligibility contingencies in NIL agreements to safeguard against sudden regulatory shifts.
The Future of NIL and College Athletics
The SAFE Act could become a watershed moment for college sports—reshaping eligibility, athlete empowerment, and NIL governance for collegiate athletes and the broader landscape of collegiate athletics.
If implemented carefully, it could strike the right balance between flexibility and structure, empowering athletes while preserving program stability. Institutions and universities will need to adapt to new governance structures and evolving responsibilities as they navigate these changes. The ongoing debate in Congress about whether college athletes should be considered employees of their university or athletic program will play a critical role in shaping future policies. Additionally, the definition of sport and the governance of collegiate athletics will continue to evolve as new legislation is considered. If mishandled, it risks deepening inequities, increasing litigation, and destabilizing the very foundation of college athletics.
Either way, one thing is clear: The SAFE Act is not just another policy proposal—it’s a potential reset for the entire NIL landscape.