The NIL Visa Trap: Why International Athletes Are Being Left Behind

The historic $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement was approved in June 2025, ushering in a new era where universities can pay student-athletes directly — up to $20.5 million per school per year. It was hailed as a landmark victory for athlete compensation.

But for more than 20,000 international student-athletes — approximately 12% of all NCAA athletes — the celebration rang hollow. They're legally barred from participating.

The Problem: F-1 Visas Don't Allow NIL Work

The vast majority of international student-athletes in the United States hold F-1 student visas, which were designed for one purpose: full-time academic study. Under federal immigration regulations, F-1 holders are prohibited from off-campus employment without specific authorization.

The financial impact is staggering. According to data from the NCAA, opendorse, and FiveThirtyEight, the exclusion represents an estimated $13.28 million in voided potential earnings.

The Legal Minefield

Immigration law defines "employment" broadly to include any service or labor performed in exchange for compensation — monetary or otherwise. This encompasses not just traditional employment but also independent contractor work, self-employment, and freelance work. Even volunteering can count if someone else would be paid for the same work.

The penalties for unauthorized employment are severe:

• Immediate termination of F-1 visa status
• Removal/deportation proceedings
• Bars on reentry to the United States
• Inability to obtain future visa statuses, including P-1 professional athlete visas
• Additional penalties for institutions from the Department of Labor

The "Passive Income" Workaround — And Why It's Fragile

Some schools and NIL collectives have tried to structure payments as "passive royalties" for licensing NIL rights — arguing that royalties from group licensing arrangements, merchandise, or video game pools are permissible because they arise from a property right rather than a labor relationship.

But immigration counsel consistently warn that DHS looks at substance over form: if the athlete must do anything promotional in the United States, the income is likely "active" employment, not passive royalty. The distinction is critical and often razor-thin.

Revenue-sharing payments under the House settlement create an even bigger problem. Universities are treating these as royalty payments, but increasingly, revenue-sharing agreements contain bonus incentives tied to athletic performance — touchdowns, receptions, rushing yards. Immigration officials could easily reclassify these as compensation for services, jeopardizing every international athlete who signed one.

A Landmark Lawsuit: Poa vs. USCIS

In September 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Brian Jackson denied USCIS's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Last-Tear Poa, an international basketball player. Poa sought a P-1A athlete visa — which would allow NIL compensation — but USCIS denied her petition, arguing she couldn't qualify because she was primarily in the U.S. as a student.

The court sided with Poa, finding that "solely for the purposes of" under P-1A classification doesn't preclude the dual purpose of attending university and participating in college athletics. This decision could open the door for international student-athletes to pursue both their education and NIL compensation — but the case is still working its way through the courts.

The Recruiting Implication

Sports executives and athletic directors should understand: this isn't just a legal issue. It's a competitive issue. International recruits are increasingly aware of the NIL gap. A top tennis prospect from Belgium or a promising swimmer from Australia is weighing NIL earning potential alongside coaching, facilities, and academics.

If your program can't offer a clear immigration pathway for NIL participation, you're at a disadvantage against schools that can.

What Needs to Change

The current system creates a two-tier athlete class where Americans can earn millions while their international teammates — often the best players on the roster — are locked out. Three things need to happen:

1. Federal guidance from DHS: The Department of Homeland Security has been "assessing" the NIL issue since July 2021. Four years later, there's still no formal guidance. Clarity is overdue.
2. A new visa category: There is no visa specifically dedicated to the student-athlete that would allow for compensation. That gap still exists.
3. Institutional compliance infrastructure: Until the law changes, organizations must implement proactive compliance strategies — including partnerships with experienced immigration counsel — to protect their international athletes from inadvertent violations.