A Different Set of Rules: NIL Challenges for International Student-Athletes

Since the NCAA adopted its interim NIL policy in July 2021, student-athletes have increasingly monetized their personal brands through activities such as endorsements, sponsorships, social-media promotions, and public appearances. In the wake of the House settlement, recent NIL, revenue-sharing, and athlete-compensation developments have only accelerated that transformation.

Yet for many international student-athletes, the NIL marketplace operates under a different set of rules, rendering it largely unavailable. Many of the approximately 25,000¹ international collegiate student-athletes in the US are in F-1 non-immigrant status, a classification with strict limitations on . As a result, the NIL opportunities routinely available to a US citizen teammate raise significant immigration questions for an international athlete in F-1 status.²

The NIL landscape for international student-athletes is a legal gray zone. F-1 employment restrictions complicate many common NIL activities and federal guidance has not kept pace. In practice, athletes and schools have explored imperfect options, including passive licensing, overseas NIL activity, Curricular Practical Training or Optional Practical Training, and changes of status from F-1 to another non-immigrant status, e.g., P-1A or O-1A.

As NIL becomes an increasingly central part of college sports, pressure is growing for a clearer framework for international collegiate student-athletes to participate in that marketplace without jeopardizing their immigration status.

I. NIL Changed the Marketplace, but Immigration Law Did Not Change With It

The modern NIL era emerged from broader legal challenges to the NCAA's amateurism model. In NCAA v. Alston, the Supreme Court affirmed an injunction against NCAA limits on certain education-related benefits, holding that those restrictions violated federal antitrust law and were subject to ordinary rule of reason analysis.³ Although Alston did not create NIL rights,⁴ the decision accelerated the movement toward athlete compensation.⁵ Shortly thereafter, the NCAA adopted its interim NIL policy, allowing student-athletes to monetize their name, image, and likeness consistent with state law and institutional policy.⁶ More recently, and most critically, the approval of the House v. NCAA settlement permitted Division I institutions to share revenue directly with student-athletes in the form of NIL deals.⁷ The settlement reflects a fundamental, but unstated premise underlying the modern college athletics landscape: student-athletes generate substantial economic value for stakeholders and should be permitted to share in that value.

While NCAA rules increasingly encourage or facilitate NIL-based compensation for collegiate athletes, F-1 regulations restrict the circumstances under which international students may engage in compensated activities. The same compensation opportunities that the NCAA and the House settlement seek to expand create immigration-law risks for international student-athletes, producing a growing tension between the objectives of college athletics and the constraints of the existing immigration framework.

II. The F-1 Framework

F-1 status is governed by a limited employment framework. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines an F-1 student as:

"an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study [at an approved academic institution]."⁸

Consistent with that purpose, F-1 status is designed principally to allow international students to pursue academic studies in the United States, and, as such, F-1 students are authorized to work only in certain limited circumstances.

A. Authorized Employment for F-1 Students

1) On-Campus Employment

F-1 students generally may engage in on-campus employment while maintaining valid status. While school is in session, on-campus employment generally is limited to 20 hours per week, although students may work full-time during certain authorized vacation periods.⁹ Importantly, the on-campus employment exception is relatively narrow. It generally covers work for the school or certain educationally-affiliated employers that directly supports students or university operations.¹⁰ NIL compensation does not fit comfortably within this framework because it usually involves a student-athlete providing non-employee services or licensing publicity rights to a third-party sponsor, collective, advertiser, or business.

2) Curricular Practical Training

F-1 students may also be authorized to receive compensation for Curricular Practical Training (CPT), which is defined as alternate work/study, internship, cooperative education, or any other type of required internship or practicum that is offered by sponsoring employers through cooperative agreements with the school.¹¹

To qualify, CPT generally must be closely tied to the student's academic program and form an integral part of an established curriculum.¹² Unlike general off-campus employment, CPT is intended to provide practical training connected to a student's academic program. However, students who accumulate 12 months or more of full-time CPT become ineligible for Optional Practical Training (OPT) at the same educational level, a significant consideration for many international students who intend to pursue OPT after graduation.¹³

As discussed further in Section III, some universities have explored whether certain NIL-related activities may fit within CPT when sufficiently connected to a student's academic program. However, DHS, the agency that administers the immigration system and oversees US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has not issued comprehensive NIL-specific guidance addressing this issue.

3) Optional Practical Training

OPT permits temporary employment directly related to the student's major area of study.¹⁴ OPT may be authorized before or after completion of a degree program, although it is most commonly used following graduation. Unlike CPT, OPT need not be an integral part of the curriculum itself, although it must maintain a direct relationship to the student's academic field.¹⁵ Some advisers have explored whether NIL work connected to fields such as marketing, communications, sports management, or kinesiology could qualify. As with CPT, however, DHS has not issued NIL-specific guidance.

4) Other Forms of Employment Authorization

Additional categories of employment authorization exist in limited circumstances, such as severe economic hardship.¹⁶ Although these categories are important components of the broader F-1 employment framework, they have limited relevance to NIL activities because they are designed to address specific humanitarian, financial, or institutional circumstances, rather than athlete-compensation opportunities.

B. Unauthorized Employment for F-1 Students

Since F-1 students are limited to specific forms of authorized employment, it is critical to determine whether NIL activities and compensation fall within those permitted categories. As neither the INA nor the F-1 regulations specifically address NIL activities, the central issue is whether a particular NIL arrangement constitutes 'employment' as that term is construed under the immigration regulatory framework. USCIS, a sub-agency of DHS, has historically taken a broad view of employment,¹⁷ and the existing regulatory framework provides little guidance regarding how modern NIL arrangements should be analyzed.

The stakes are significant. Unauthorized employment may result in a violation of F-1 status and can affect a student's ability to maintain lawful status or obtain future immigration benefits. Questions concerning prior NIL activity may arise during future visa applications, consular interviews, requests for admission at a US port of entry, or other immigration proceedings long after the individual has completed their collegiate athletic career and their NIL contract has run its course.

Thus, international student-athletes (and the schools that sponsor them) are left to evaluate the legality of NIL opportunities under immigration law without meaningful regulatory guidance. In the absence of clear DHS or USCIS direction, athletes, universities, sponsors, and immigration counsel have explored a variety of approaches—including passive licensing arrangements, CPT and OPT authorization, activities conducted outside the United States, and changes of status to other non-immigrant classifications—to reduce immigration-related risk.

III. Potential Options for F-1 Students

In the absence of clear federal guidance, students and universities have looked for ways to structure NIL opportunities around the limits of F-1 status.

A. Active and Passive NIL

Universities and students have considered passive licensing as a potential way to reduce the unauthorized-employment risk for F-1 students. Neither DHS nor USCIS has issued guidance expressly approving passive licensing arrangements as permissible for F-1 students; however, this workaround does offer promise. Active NIL arrangements generally require the athlete to perform services in exchange for compensation, such as sponsored social-media posts, commercials, or camps. Since compensation under the visa rules is tied to the athlete's performance of services, many view these activities as more likely to constitute employment.

Passive NIL arrangements, by contrast, involve compensation for the use of an athlete's publicity rights without requiring additional services. Examples include royalty payments, merchandise licensing, or compensation for the use of existing photographs or other NIL assets. In practice, many NIL deals contain both service and licensing components, making the distinction difficult to apply.

Immigration practitioners differ on whether this type of passive compensation violates F-1 status. Some view it as a potentially viable approach, while others caution that USCIS officers, consular officials, or other immigration adjudicators may not draw the same distinction.

B. NIL Work Outside the United States

Since F-1 employment restrictions generally focus on work physically performed in the United States, some F-1 student-athletes have looked to overseas NIL activity as a potential option. A prominent example is Oscar Tshiebwe, the former Kentucky basketball star and Congolese national, who reportedly earned significant NIL compensation by participating in promotional activities while his team was in the Bahamas.¹⁸

This approach has its limitations. Since international student-athletes spend most of the academic year in the United States, opportunities to travel abroad may be limited, and many NIL arrangements focus on US-based campaigns where the target market is larger. Moreover, some practitioners caution that overseas NIL activity could still raise questions in future visa, admission, or immigration proceedings, particularly given the absence of comprehensive DHS or USCIS guidance.

C. CPT and OPT

Some schools and advisers have explored whether CPT and/or OPT can support limited NIL activity under certain circumstances. As detailed above, CPT is available when practical training is an integral part of an established curriculum, leading some institutions to consider whether NIL activities can be tied to academic programs in areas such as marketing or sports management. However, DHS and USCIS have not issued formal NIL-specific guidance on this.

CPT and OPT may provide pathways for certain international student-athletes, but neither offers a broad solution. Eligibility depends on the student's academic program, the structure of the NIL activity, and appropriate authorization; any use of CPT or OPT in the NIL context is likely to receive significant scrutiny.

D. Transition from F-1 to P-1A or O-1A Status

1) P-1A

The P-1A category is a temporary non-immigrant classification for "athletes with an internationally recognized reputation and members of an athletic team that is internationally recognized" who are "coming to the United States to participate in an athletic competition which has a distinguished reputation and which requires participation of an athlete or athletic team with an international reputation."¹⁹Applicants for P-1A classification must also satisfy at least two of the evidentiary regulatory , such as providing evidence that the athlete has received a significant honor or award in the sport, or evidence of having participated in international competition with a national team.²⁰ Since P-1A classification is focused on athletics and not academics, some international student-athletes have explored it as an alternative to F-1 status. However, P-1A adjudications remain highly discretionary – while some international college athletes have reportedly obtained P-1A status, USCIS adjudications have not been uniform.

That discretion is at the center of Poa v. Jaddou, which arose after USCIS denied the P-1A petition of Last-Tear Poa, an Australian national who played for Louisiana State University before transferring to Arizona State University for her final collegiate season.²¹ Poa sought to change from F-1 student status to P-1A athlete status because she believed the classification would permit her to pursue NIL opportunities while continuing her studies and basketball career. USCIS argued that she could not qualify because P-1A status is limited to individuals coming to the United States solely to compete as athletes, while NCAA participation also requires full-time student enrollment.²²

Poa challenged that interpretation, arguing that USCIS's approach treated college athletics inconsistently: F-1 status permitted her to study while competing in NCAA basketball, but USCIS read P-1A status to preclude the same combination of education and athletics.²³ The district court denied USCIS's motion to dismiss, but did not hold that Poa qualified for P-1A status. Instead, the court concluded that review of the full administrative record was necessary to determine whether USCIS's denial was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to law.²⁴ Since 2025-2026 was Poa's final year of collegiate eligibility, the government is now seeking dismissal on mootness grounds.

This case poses a significant test as to whether USCIS will categorically reject the use of P-1A status by NCAA athletes whose athletic competition is intertwined with full-time student enrollment. For NIL purposes, the P-1A pathway may remain available to some athletes, but Poa underscores that it is not a guaranteed solution.

2) O-1A Extraordinary Athletes

Another potential alternative is the O-1A classification, which is available to individuals who possess "extraordinary ability" in the sciences, education, business, or athletics.²⁵ Unlike F-1 status, which is designed for students, or P-1A status, which is tied to participation in athletic competitions, the O-1A classification is reserved for individuals who have risen to the very top of their field. To qualify, an athlete must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, either through a major internationally recognized award or by satisfying at least three of eight evidentiary criteria established by regulation, such as: "nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence"; published material about the athlete in "professional or major trade publications"; or a high salary "or other significantly high remuneration for services."²⁶ The demanding nature of this standard makes O-1A status available to only a limited subset of student-athletes, one of the most well-known examples being Hansel Enmanuel, a star basketball player for Austin Peay (after transferring from Northwestern State), who is a Dominican Republic national.²⁷

O-1A status may provide a viable option for a relatively small group of elite international athletes, but is unlikely to serve as a broad solution for the larger population of international student-athletes seeking to participate in NIL activities. O-1A petitions can be costly, evidence-intensive, and highly dependent on the unique facts of each case.

IV. Congressional Pressure for Federal Guidance

In June and July 2021, the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, a component of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, issued broadcast messages stating that it was monitoring NIL developments affecting F-1 student-athletes and was coordinating with other government partners to assess whether regulatory guidance would be necessary.²⁸ Despite those statements, DHS has not yet issued comprehensive NIL-specific guidance for international student-athletes.

This uncertainty surrounding NIL and immigration law has drawn bipartisan attention in Congress. In an April 2024 letter, a bipartisan group of Senators urged DHS to clarify whether and under what circumstances F-1 student-athletes may engage in NIL activities, warning that international athletes and college athletics programs face "a credible risk that even the most basic NIL deal could violate the work restrictions of the F-1 visa."²⁹ The letter also criticized DHS' failure to provide guidance despite earlier commitments to address the issue, arguing that the lack of clarity leaves international student-athletes and athletic programs in a difficult position.³⁰

The letter underscores a broader point: the principal challenge is not necessarily the absence of a new immigration category, but the absence of clear rules. Whether through agency guidance, regulatory action, or legislation, stakeholders increasingly agree that the current uncertainty imposes significant costs on athletes, universities, sponsors, and conferences.

V. Looking Ahead

NIL has become a defining feature of modern college athletics, but immigration law has not evolved at the same pace. As a result, international student-athletes continue to navigate a patchwork of uncertain approaches. Some work in limited circumstances, but none has yet provided a comprehensive solution.

The pressure for clarity is likely to grow. As NIL opportunities expand, revenue-sharing models develop, and international athletes continue to play prominent roles in college sports, universities and sponsors will need more predictable rules. Until then, the NIL marketplace will continue to exclude many of its potential participants.

Until clearer federal guidance emerges, colleges and third-party collectives should:

• Consult counsel before entering into or facilitating NIL arrangements involving international student-athletes.
• Monitor whether performance under those agreements could violate a student's immigration status.
• Consider contractual protections to mitigate risks, such as termination rights, continued-eligibility representations, or clawback provisions.

Footnotes

1. NCAA, International Student-Athlete Participation, https://www.ncaa.org/what-we-do/research/international-student-athlete-participation/.

2. This article focuses on F-1 status. Other immigrant and non-immigrant status categories have their own regulations and rules and are beyond the scope of this alert.

3. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Alston, 594 US 69, 100-07 (2021).

4. Id. at 81-82, 100-07 (addressing education-related benefits rather than athlete NIL rights).

5. Id. at 110-20 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).

6. See NCAA, Interim Name, Image and Likeness Policy Guidance Regarding Third Party Involvement (Jul. 1, 2021), https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/NIL/May2022NIL_Guidance.pdf.

7. In re College Athlete NIL Litig., No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW (N.D. Cal. filed June 7, 2025) (Opinion Regarding Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Settlement).

8. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F)(i).

9. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(9)(i).

10. US Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Student and Exchange Visitor Program, Employment, https://www.ice.gov/sevis/employment (explaining that qualifying on-campus employment generally must occur on school premises or at certain educationally affiliated locations and typically involves work that directly provides services to students).

11. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(10)(i).

12. Id.

13. Id.

14. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(9-10).

15. Id.

16. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(9)(ii).

17. Per DHS regulations, employment is generally defined as "any service or labor performed by an employee for an employer within the United States." 8 C.F.R. § 274a.1(h).

18. Isabel Gonzales, Kentucky star Oscar Tshiebwe set to earn $500,000 during team's trip to the Bahamas, CBS Sports (Aug. 11, 2022), https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/kentucky-star-oscar-tshiebwe-set-to-earn-500000-during-teams-trip-to-the-bahamas/.

19. See USCIS, Policy Manual, Vol. 2, Pt. N, Ch. 2 (current as of Jul. 13, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-n-chapter-2; see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(1)(ii)(A)(1); INA § 214(c)(4)(A)(i)(I).

20. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(4)(ii)(B).

21. Poa v. Jaddou, No. 3:24-cv-00887-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. filed Oct. 24, 2024).

22. Poa v. Jaddou, No. 3:24-cv-00887-BAJ-RLB, slip op. at 1-4 (M.D. La. Sept. 19, 2025).

23. Id. at 4-5.

24. Id. at 8-10.

25. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i).

26. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o).

27. See, e.g., Andrew Kreighbaum, Star's Visa Is Rare Win for Foreign Athletes Banking on Likeness, Bloomberg Law (Nov. 3, 2022), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/stars-visa-is-rare-win-for-foreign-athletes-banking-on-likeness.

28. US Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Student and Exchange Visitor Program, Broadcast Message No. 2106-03, SEVP Monitoring Student Athlete Legislation (June 21, 2021), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/bcm2106-03.pdf; US Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Student and Exchange Visitor Program, Broadcast Message No. 2107-02, SEVP Continues to Discuss Compensation for International Student Athletes (July 19, 2021), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/bcm2107-02.pdf.

29. Letter from Sens. Richard Blumenthal, Chris Murphy, Pete Ricketts & Shelley Moore Capito to Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Sec'y, US Dep't of Homeland Sec. (Apr. 23, 2024), https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2024-04-29_letter_dhs-international_student_athletes.pdf.

30. Id.