Starting July 1, 2025, the historic House v. NCAA settlement will take effect, marking a watershed moment in college athletics: for the first time in its history, the NCAA will permit schools to directly compensate student-athletes. Under this new framework, universities can opt into revenue-sharing programs, allocating up to an estimated $20 million annually per institution to their athletes.
This unprecedented shift ushers in what many are calling the formalization of “pay-for-play” in college sports. Schools will have discretion over how funds are distributed. Some may focus compensation on marquee athletes in high-revenue sports like men’s football, while others may aim for a more equitable distribution across teams. The precise impact on Title IX compliance remains uncertain, though it is excepted that a portion of funds will go to women’s athletics.
While athletes may now earn significant direct compensation—potentially in the seven-figure range—these payments are expected to resemble independent contractor arrangements, rather than traditional employment relationships. Athletes will still be able to enter into Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals, though a new provision requires that all NIL contracts be reviewed to ensure they reflect fair market value and genuine endorsements.
The Immigration Law Blind Spot: International Student-Athletes
Despite the sweeping progress for domestic student-athletes, international students are notably left behind.
Most international student-athletes attend U.S. colleges on F-1 visas, which are educational in nature and impose tight restrictions on employment. In 2016, Associate Attorney Josh Wildes explored this exact issue, theorizing what might happen if college athletes were ever allowed to be paid, and how it would be effected by immigration law. At the time, it was a hypothetical. Today, it’s a legal reality—one that still fails to address the immigration limitations for foreign athletes.
As Josh wrote nearly a decade ago:
“While there is an alphabet soup of visas available for individuals coming from abroad, as of now, there is no visa, specifically dedicated to the student athlete, that would allow for compensation in exchange for their brains and their might. However, should the conversation about students getting paid continue, it would be wise for foreign individuals, schools, organizations, policy makers, and professionals to begin considering what type of visa would be required for a foreign student-athlete.”
Unfortunately, that foresight was not matched by governmental action. No new visa categories or regulatory exceptions have been introduced to accommodate international student-athletes who, but for their immigration status, would be eligible for this compensation.
Limited Options—and Significant Obstacles
F-1 visa holders are presumed to be in the U.S. to pursue academic study. While they can participate in sports as part of the educational experience, their ability to earn income is tightly regulated. Permitted employment is generally limited to certain on-campus jobs, Optional Practical Training (OPT) after graduation, or Curricular Practical Training (CPT) —none of which allows for direct compensation for athletic performance (a clear quid-pro-quo).
As such, international athletes hoping to benefit from the new pay structure might consider other visa categories, though these come with significant limitations:
Proceed with Caution
While House v. NCAA is a major milestone in college sports, it also highlights the glaring lack of immigration solutions for international student-athletes. Both schools and athletes must tread carefully to ensure compliance with U.S. immigration law. If you have questions or concerns about how this legal shift may impact international students, or if you’re a student-athlete seeking guidance on visa options, please contact Associate Attorney Josh Wildes at josh@wildeslaw.com.
*Posted by Josh Wildes on June 9, 2025, and may not be updated, as there is ongoing litigation.