International College Athletes Remain in Limbo After House v. NCAA Decision: Considerations for International Athletes in Name, Image, and Likeness and Revenue Sharing Opportunities

Takeaways

• International student-athletes on F-1 visas face significant legal barriers to participating in Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) activities due to existing immigration laws prohibiting most forms of employment for F-1 visa holders.
• The House v. NCAA settlement agreement introduces revenue sharing to college athletics, but it raises unresolved legal questions about the kinds of compensation that international students can receive and the permissible NIL-related activities that international student-athletes can engage in while maintaining their F-1 visa status.
• Permissible NIL activities for F-1 students are limited to passive income (e.g., royalties, licensing) and activities performed entirely outside the United States; active or promotional work within the United States is prohibited posing significant compliance challenges for athletics departments seeking to provide economic benefits to international athletes similar to those their teammates can participate in and receive.
• Despite efforts from Congress to urge the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide guidance permitting F-1 visa holders to receive revenue share payments and to participate in active NIL opportunities on United States soil, no federal guidance has been issued to date, leaving schools and collectives to navigate an uncertain legal landscape with severe consequences for noncompliance.
• Noncompliance carries serious consequences, including potential loss of visa status for students and civil or criminal penalties for institutions and athletic departments.

The Ongoing NIL Legal Challenges for International Student-Athletes Post House

In February 2023, we shared an update on the rapidly evolving landscape of student-athlete NIL rights following the emergence of new state-level NIL laws and the Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston.

Since then, the legal and regulatory framework has continued to shift dramatically, with legislative hearings held in Washington, ongoing legal debates in Johnson v. NCAA and Schroeder v. Oregon, and updates to Title IX from the United States Department of Education. Most recently, the NIL landscape has shifted because of the landmark House v. NCAA settlement agreement. While these developments have opened new doors for student-athletes, they have also exposed a widening gap in protections and opportunities for international student-athletes—many of whom hold F-1 visas and face unique legal constraints.

The New Revenue-Sharing Era of College Sports Post House

On July 1, 2025, the NCAA entered a new era of college sports compensation following a $2.8 billion settlement in House v. NCAA, which provides retroactive and prospective NIL payments to student-athletes, allows direct payments from institutions to players, and establishes a 10-year revenue-sharing model. The agreement also allows for expanded roster and scholarship limits across several sports and establishes a new enforcement mechanism—“NIL GO”—a Deloitte-managed clearinghouse responsible for reviewing non-school NIL deals over $600 for fair market value. While the settlement agreement is widely viewed as a win for student athletes, it also highlights murky legal terrain for collectives and schools that may violate immigration law if they compensate international student-athletes.

In the absence of federal guidance, several questions remain:

• Can international student athletes legally participate in revenue sharing under current visa restrictions?
• What types of NIL activities are currently permissible for F-1 visa holders, and how can schools and collectives ensure compliance with immigration law?
• How should schools, collectives, or international student-athletes structure NIL deals that are compliant with F-1 visa restrictions?

The Overlap Between Immigration Policies, NIL Rules, and International Student-Athletes

Currently, more than 25,000 international student-athletes from countries around the world compete in NCAA sports. These athletes face a unique set of challenges when it comes to navigating the evolving NIL landscape. Moreover, the collectives and schools that serve these students must also work through a system that lacks clear federal guidance and presents significant legal risks. While recent reforms have expanded NIL opportunities for domestic student-athletes, including direct school payments, revenue-sharing, and broader endorsement rights, the NIL landscape has yet to fully address—nor has immigration policy resolved—the unique challenges facing international student-athletes.

Despite the sweeping changes since our last update in 2023, neither the DHS nor the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) have issued guidance on how and whether international student-athletes can participate in NIL agreements without violating immigration law.

To be clear, student-athletes on F-1 visas must follow immigration rules that strictly limit the types of activities for which they can be paid. To understand what international student-athletes can do, it’s helpful to first look at the various F-1 restrictions and requirements:

1. No off-campus employment without authorization
   1. F-1 students are generally prohibited from working off-campus unless specifically authorized through programs like Curricular Practical Training (CPT) or Optional Practical Training (OPT). See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f).
2. Limited on-campus employment
   1. F-1 students are permitted to hold on-campus jobs, but only if it is directly affiliated with the school (e.g., bookstore, cafeteria). NIL-related activities typically do not qualify as on-campus employment. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f).
3. Self-employment prohibited
   1. F-1 students cannot operate a business or engage in self-employment, including NIL ventures run from a dorm room or personal brand monetization without authorization. See Handbook for Employers M-274.
4. “Employment” is defined broadly
   1. In the immigration context, “employment” is defined as “any service or labor performed by an employee for an employer within the United States,” regardless of compensation. See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.1(h).
      1. Even unpaid NIL activities may be considered unauthorized employment if they benefit a third party.
   2. In Tenn. Coal, Iron & R.R. Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, the United States Supreme Court defined employment as the “physical or mental exertion (whether burdensome or not) controlled or required by the employer and pursued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer and his business.” 321 U.S. 590, 598 (1944). This definition is used to assess whether an activity qualifies as employment under immigration regulations.
5. NIL activity must be evaluated by location and nature
   1. Permissible: Passive income (e.g., royalties, copyright licenses, passive compensation) or NIL activities performed entirely outside the United States.
   2. Impermissible: Active NIL engagements (e.g., appearances, autograph signings, content creation) performed within the United States, even without compensation.
6. Maintaining F-1 status
   1. Students must remain enrolled full-time and avoid any activity that could be interpreted as unauthorized employment, which could jeopardize their visa status and future immigration benefits.
7. Legal consequences
   1. For schools/collectives: Civil and criminal penalties for knowingly employing unauthorized workers.
   2. For students: Loss of immigration status, ineligibility for future benefits, and potential removal proceedings.

What’s Permissible? NIL Activities That Don’t Violate F-1 Visa Rules

To help clarify what international student-athletes on F-1 visas can and cannot do under current immigration law, the chart below outlines common NIL-related activities in a side-by-side format. This comparison is designed to help schools, collectives, and student-athletes quickly identify compliant opportunities and avoid activities that could jeopardize visa status.

Special thanks to summer associate Gerry Regep for his contributions to this article. Gerry is not yet admitted to practice in any jurisdiction.