Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
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
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:
No off-campus employment without authorization: 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).
Limited on-campus employment: 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).
Self-employment prohibited: 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.
“Employment” is defined broadly: 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). Even unpaid NIL activities may be considered unauthorized employment if they benefit a third party.
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.
NIL activity must be evaluated by location and nature: What is permissible? Passive income (e.g., royalties, copyright licenses, passive compensation) or NIL activities performed entirely outside the United States.
What is impermissible? Active NIL engagements (e.g., appearances, autograph signings, content creation) performed within the United States, even without compensation.
Maintaining F-1 status: 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.
Legal consequences: For schools/collectives, there are civil and criminal penalties for knowingly employing unauthorized workers. Students face the loss of immigration status, ineligibility for future benefits and potential removal proceedings.•
__________
Jarrod F. Loadholt and Ken Robinson are partners at Ice Miller. Summer associate Gerry Regep contributed to this article. Opinion expressed are those of the authors.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.