The landscape of collegiate athletics is undergoing significant transformation, particularly concerning the rights of international student-athletes to engage in Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) activities. A pivotal case, Poa v. Jaddou, currently before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, challenges existing immigration policies that restrict these athletes from capitalizing on their NIL rights.
At the heart of this legal battle is Last-Tear Poa, an Australian national and women’s basketball player at Louisiana State University (LSU). Poa’s application for a P-1A visa—a category designated for internationally recognized athletes—was denied by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The denial was based on the assertion that her proposed NIL activities did not qualify as “ancillary promotional activities” related to her athletic status, and that her NIL representation agreement did not constitute an agency agreement. Additionally, USCIS maintained that she could not attend school on a P-1A visa. Consequently, Poa initiated legal action against USCIS, contesting these determinations and the broader limitations imposed on international student-athletes seeking to engage in NIL activities.
This case underscores the complex interplay between U.S. immigration laws and the evolving NIL landscape. International student-athletes typically hold F-1 visas, which impose stringent restrictions on employment. These visas permit limited on-campus work and specific off-campus employment directly related to the student’s field of study, such as Curricular Practical Training (CPT) or Optional Practical Training (OPT). However, NIL activities—ranging from social media promotions to endorsement deals—are generally classified as employment under U.S. immigration law, placing them outside the permissible activities for F-1 visa holders. Engaging in unauthorized employment can lead to severe consequences, including visa revocation, deportation, and future inadmissibility to the United States.
The NCAA’s interim NIL policy, implemented in 2021 and updated in 2024, allows student-athletes to profit from their NIL. However, the NCAA defers to federal immigration laws for international athletes, effectively leaving them unable to participate in NIL opportunities without risking their visa status. This deference creates a disparity between domestic and international athletes, with the latter unable to benefit from the same opportunities as their U.S. counterparts.
The Poa v. Jaddou case has the potential to set a significant precedent. A ruling in favor of Poa could prompt a reevaluation of current immigration policies, potentially leading to reforms that would enable international student-athletes to engage in NIL activities without jeopardizing their visa status. Such a development would not only align with the NCAA’s NIL policies but also promote equity among all student-athletes, regardless of nationality.
As the case progresses, stakeholders in collegiate athletics, immigration law, and higher education are closely monitoring its implications. The outcome could catalyze changes in both policy and practice, ensuring that international student-athletes have the same opportunities to benefit from their talents and hard work as their domestic peers.