Blog by Isabelle Minerva, Junior Associate 

International student-athletes do not have the same celebratory attitude towards the Name, Image, Likeness policy as their American teammates. Name, Image, and Likeness (“NIL”) is an interim policy passed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) in June 2021 that allows student-athletes of American colleges and universities to profit from their personal brand and performance.[1]  Upon the passage of this policy, there have been many questions about certain restrictions, enforceability, and limitations.[2]  One of the more prevalent topics, is the restrictions to partake in any NIL profits on international student-athletes.[3]

In June 2021, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the NCAA could not limit education-related benefits that colleges can offer to student-athletes because limiting these benefits would violate U.S. antitrust laws.[4]  However, this U.S. Supreme Court decision introduced a gray area on whether students could be considered employees of the universities and receive salaries for the benefits their efforts bring such as ticket, merchandise, and television revenues.[5]

International student-athletes attending American Division 1 colleges and universities are excluded from reaping the NIL benefits due their subjection to immigration laws and regulations.[6]  Currently, there are more than 20,000 international NCAA athletes that are excluded from these benefits that results in a $13.3 million potential loss of earnings for these students.[7]  Most of the international student-athletes are granted F1-visas to study in the United States and have strict limitations.[8]  With this visa, international student-athletes are allowed to partake in a limited amount of work that is in direct correlation with their pursued major; or the athletes are allowed to receive passive income.[9]  The United States immigration laws are not particularly clear on exceptions for NIL,[10] but the consequences for partaking in the NIL industry as an unauthorized employee includes revocation of student F1-visa, deportation, and reentry denial.[11]  Therefore, in order to comply with the immigration laws, these athletes can only participate in NIL if the work is conducted outside of the United States.[12]

In addition to their inability to partake in NIL benefits, these international students face another dilemma pending the results of a lawsuit that will allow revenue-sharing systems between Division I schools and athletes.[13]  In April 2025, House v. NCAA will be decided by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilkens;[14] and pending the decision, it would have American universities pay all athletes directly via a revenue-sharing model.[15]  The legal question that drives this dilemma is if these payments manifest an employee-employer relation and could violate the regulations of the F1-visa.[16] Consequently, these universities and colleges could be under scrutiny if the institutions allow international students to opt-in because it would be violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(A) that states it is illegal to pay unauthorized workers.[17]  This House v. NCAA settlement will drive the conversation of NIL eligibility for international students by putting pressure for compliance on the American universities and colleges and not just the international student-athletes individually.

[1] Michelle Brutlag Hosick, NCAA adopts interim name, image, and likeness policy, Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assoc. (June 30, 2021, 4:20 PM), https://www.ncaa.org/news/2021/6/30/ncaa-adopts-interim-name-image-and-likeness-policy.aspx.

[2] Name, Image, Likeness, N.C.S.A. Collegiate Recruiting (Dec. 6, 2024), https://www.ncsasports.org/name-image-likeness.

[3] Bryan Dearinger, Name, Image, and Likeness: International Student-Athletes, Univ. Or.: Off. Gen. Couns. (last visited Feb. 28, 2024), https://generalcounsel.uoregon.edu/name-image-and-likeness-international-student-athletes.

[4] Jessica Gresko, Supreme Court win for college athletes in compensation case, Assoc. Press (June 21, 2021, 9:01 PM), https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-supreme-court-alston-college-athlete-benefits-5be12caeaf014da7d71baf0bb60646fe.

[5] Id.

[6] Dearinger, supra note 3.

[7] Id.

[8] See 8 U.S.C. § 1182.

[9] Amanda Christovich, House v. NCAA Settlement Creates Potential Crisis for International Athletes, Front Office Sports (Feb. 21, 2025), https://frontofficesports.com/house-settlement-international-athletes/.

[10] Dearinger, supra note 6.

[11] Ksenia Maiorova & John W. Mazzeo, Why Direct Student-Athlete Payments Create An Immigration Crisis For Universities, Athletic Director U. (last visited Feb. 28, 2025), https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/why-direct-student-athlete-payments-create-an-immigration-crisis-for-universities/.

[12] Josh Planos, One Group of Student-Athletes Is Conspicuously Absent from NIL Deals, FiveThirtyEight (Nov. 15, 2021), https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/one-group-of-student-athletes-is-conspicuously-absent-from-nil-deals/.

[13]  Christovich, supra note 9.

[14] The House v. NCAA Settlement Moves Forward After Objection Deadline – But Key Questions Remain About the Deal Poised to Redefine Collegiate Athletics, O’Melveny & Myers LLP (Feb. 27, 2025), https://www.omm.com/insights/alerts-publications/the-house-v-ncaa-settlement-moves-forward-after-objection-deadline-but-key-questions-remain-about-the-deal-poised-to-redefine-collegiate-athletics/.

[15] Christovich, supra note 13.

[16] Id.

[17]8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(A); id.