Are International Players impacted by the new ‘pay for play’ world? Yes they are!
Statement from ICE’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program on whether House v. NCAA payments would violate student visa laws:
International athletes are becoming increasingly common in college sports. There has been a lot of ambiguity about how they get NIL, and how the new ‘schools pay the players’ system (coming soon to a school near you) will affect them. Front Office Sports published a good article (linked below) today, answering many questions.
Key Excerpts:
- International athletes on student visas may be in violation of U.S. immigration laws if they accept revenue-sharing payments this July, multiple immigration attorneys tell Front Office Sports.
- If they violate their visa status and their visas are revoked, the consequences could go much further than lost NIL (name, image, and likeness) earnings. Athletes are at risk of losing the opportunity to study in the U.S., as they’re required to either change status or leave the country within 30 days. After that, they could be deported—or even be hit with a reentry ban if they stay longer than six months.
- In the past, international athletes have dealt with the NIL immigration issue a few different ways. They could simply refuse if they didn’t want to risk losing their visas, or experiment with workarounds if they were willing to take a risk: Former Kentucky basketball player Oscar Tshiebwe, for example, participated in several NIL deals while at a men’s basketball tournament off US soil in the Bahamas, and Northwestern State basketball player Hansel Emmanuel, who went viral for playing with only one arm, was able to qualify for an’O” class visa, which is awarded to immigrants with “exceptional abilities” and allows for NIL deals.
- Schools paying international athletes could face their own run-ins with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, given that it’s illegal to pay workers who are unauthorized to work in the United States.
- Immigration attorney Sherrod Seward, as well as Maiorova, don’t see a workaround for House v. NCAA payments beyond athletes getting on different types of visas. “We can call it whatever we want to,” Maiorova says. “We can play games of semantics. But at the end of the day … direct payments are the manifestation of our collective recognition that this is pay-for-play. And if it’s pay-for-play, then it’s services—it’s labor.”
House v. NCAA Settlement Creates Potential Crisis for International Athletes