O-1A and P-1A Athletes: The Only NIL Solutions for International Collegiate Athletes

The NIL era opened the door for college athletes to profit from their Name, Image, and Likeness. For most domestic athletes, the question is simply how to handle the taxes. For international collegiate athletes on O-1A or P-1A visas, the question is far more fundamental: can you legally receive NIL income at all?

The answer is yes — but only through a narrow set of structures that most NIL advisors, collectives, and even university compliance offices do not fully understand. Get it wrong and you are not just facing a tax problem. You are facing a visa violation, potential deportation, and a permanent bar from future U.S. immigration benefits.

This article explains the O-1A and P-1A visa classifications, why standard NIL structures fail for these athletes, and the only compliant pathways that actually work.

Before addressing NIL, it is important to understand what these visa categories are and who holds them.

The O-1A visa is issued to individuals who demonstrate extraordinary ability in their field — defined as a level of expertise indicating that the person is among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field. In athletics, this typically means:

• Elite international athletes who have achieved national or international recognition
• Athletes who have received major awards, competed at the highest levels of their sport, or commanded high salaries relative to peers
• Athletes who may be transitioning from professional careers to collegiate competition, or who hold elite status in their home country

O-1A holders are authorized to work in the United States only in the specific activity described in their petition. That activity is defined narrowly — typically competition, training, and directly related activities for the sponsoring institution or organization.

The P-1A visa is issued to athletes who are internationally recognized at a sustained level of performance. This category is more commonly used for:

• Foreign-born athletes competing in U.S. collegiate programs who have achieved significant international recognition
• Athletes who have competed at international competitions representing their home country
• Athletes who are part of an internationally recognized team

Like the O-1A, P-1A authorization is tied to the specific athletic services described in the petition. The athlete is authorized to perform those services for the petitioning employer — typically the university or athletic program.

Most international collegiate athletes are on F-1 student visas, which have their own NIL restrictions (covered in our companion article on international student-athlete NIL tax and FIRPTA). O-1A and P-1A holders are in a fundamentally different legal position:

• They are not students in the immigration sense — their status is tied to their athletic performance, not academic enrollment
• Their work authorization is employer-specific and activity-specific — it does not float freely the way Optional Practical Training (OPT) or Curricular Practical Training (CPT) might for F-1 holders
• They may or may not be enrolled in academic programs, and that enrollment does not expand their work authorization

This distinction is what makes NIL so complicated for O-1A and P-1A athletes.

When a domestic athlete signs an NIL deal — a social media sponsorship, an autograph signing, a camp appearance — they are simply earning self-employment income. The tax treatment is straightforward: Schedule C, self-employment tax, quarterly estimated payments.

For an O-1A or P-1A athlete, that same transaction may constitute unauthorized employment under immigration law.

Under U.S. immigration law, an alien is authorized to work only in the capacity specified in their visa classification and petition. For O-1A and P-1A holders, that means:

• Authorized: Competing in athletic events, training, and activities directly related to the athletic services described in the petition
• Potentially unauthorized: Endorsement deals, social media sponsorships, autograph signings, camp instruction, content creation, and other NIL activities that are not athletic competition itself

The question of whether a specific NIL activity constitutes "unauthorized employment" is not always black and white, but the risk is real and the consequences are severe. USCIS has not issued comprehensive guidance specifically addressing NIL for O-1A and P-1A holders, which means the analysis must be done activity by activity, using existing immigration law principles.

Even if an NIL activity could theoretically be authorized, O-1A and P-1A visas are employer-specific. The athlete is authorized to work for the petitioning employer — the university or athletic program that sponsored the visa. An NIL deal with a third-party brand is work for a different employer, which requires a separate petition or amendment.

This is not a technicality. Working for an employer not listed on the petition is a violation of status, even if the work itself would otherwise be permissible.

Even if the NIL activity is with the same sponsoring institution (for example, a university-affiliated collective), the activity must fall within the scope of the original petition. If the petition described "athletic competition and training," a paid social media appearance for the university's marketing department may be outside that scope.

Before addressing compliant NIL structures, it is important to understand the tax position of O-1A and P-1A athletes, because it differs significantly from both domestic athletes and F-1 student-athletes.

O-1A and P-1A holders are nonimmigrant aliens. Their U.S. tax residency status — resident alien or nonresident alien — is determined by the Substantial Presence Test (SPT) under IRC § 7701(b).

Unlike F-1 and J-1 visa holders, O-1A and P-1A holders are not exempt from the SPT. They count every day of U.S. presence toward the 183-day threshold. An O-1A athlete who arrives in August and competes through May will almost certainly meet the SPT and be taxed as a resident alien — meaning they are taxed on worldwide income, file a Form 1040, and are subject to the same rules as U.S. citizens.

This is a critical distinction from F-1 holders, who are exempt from the SPT for their first five years and typically file as nonresident aliens on Form 1040-NR.

Nonresident aliens on O-1A and P-1A visas are generally subject to FICA (Social Security and Medicare taxes) on wages earned in the United States. This is another distinction from F-1 and J-1 holders, who are exempt from FICA on wages earned in their visa-authorized activities.

Once an O-1A or P-1A athlete meets the SPT and becomes a resident alien, FICA applies to all wages just as it would for a U.S. citizen.

Many O-1A and P-1A athletes come from countries that have income tax treaties with the United States. These treaties may reduce or eliminate withholding on certain categories of income — including compensation for athletic performances. However, treaty benefits are not automatic. The athlete must:

1. Determine whether their home country has a treaty with the U.S.
2. Identify the specific article that applies to their income
3. File the appropriate forms (typically Form 8833 for treaty-based return positions)
4. Ensure the treaty benefit applies given their residency status — some treaty provisions only apply to nonresident aliens

Given the immigration constraints, there are a limited number of structures that can work for O-1A and P-1A athletes seeking NIL income. Each requires careful coordination between immigration counsel, tax counsel, and the university compliance office.

The most straightforward path — in theory — is to amend the existing O-1A or P-1A petition to include NIL activities within the scope of authorized work.

How it works:

The sponsoring employer (typically the university or athletic program) files an amended petition with USCIS that expands the scope of authorized activities to include specific NIL-related work. The amendment must describe the NIL activities with specificity and demonstrate that they are consistent with the athlete's extraordinary ability or international recognition.

Practical limitations:

• USCIS processing times can be lengthy — premium processing is available for O-1A but adds cost
• The amendment must be approved before the athlete engages in the NIL activity, not after
• The scope of the amendment is limited to activities the petitioner can authorize — a university cannot authorize an endorsement deal with a third-party brand through its own petition
• Each new NIL deal or category of activity may require a new amendment

Best use case: Ongoing, recurring NIL activities with the sponsoring institution itself — for example, a university-affiliated collective that is controlled by or closely affiliated with the athletic program.

If the NIL income is coming from a third-party brand, collective, or other entity that is not the original petitioner, that entity can file its own O-1A or P-1A petition for the athlete.

How it works:

The NIL payor — the brand, collective, or other entity — becomes a co-petitioner or separate petitioner. They file their own petition with USCIS describing the specific NIL services the athlete will provide. If approved, the athlete has authorization to perform those services for that specific employer.

Practical limitations:

• The NIL payor must be willing to serve as a petitioner and bear the filing costs and administrative burden
• The petition must be approved before work begins — retroactive authorization is not available
• This structure works best for larger, more established NIL deals where the economics justify the immigration overhead
• The athlete may end up with multiple concurrent petitions, which is permissible but requires careful tracking

Best use case: Significant, long-term NIL partnerships with brands or collectives that have the resources and sophistication to manage the immigration process.

In some cases, the most practical solution is to change the athlete's visa status to one that permits broader work authorization.

The O-1B consideration: If the athlete's NIL activities are primarily in the arts, entertainment, or media — content creation, acting, modeling — an O-1B petition (extraordinary ability in the arts) may be more appropriate than O-1A and may provide broader authorization for those activities.

The EB-1A consideration: For athletes who are at the end of their collegiate careers or transitioning to professional status, pursuing EB-1A (Extraordinary Ability) permanent residence eliminates the work authorization problem entirely. As a lawful permanent resident, the athlete can engage in any lawful employment, including NIL activities, without restriction.

Practical limitations:

• Change of status takes time and may affect athletic eligibility
• EB-1A requires demonstrating extraordinary ability and is not available to all athletes
• Changing status may have implications for the athlete's home country obligations

Best use case: Athletes who are planning long-term U.S. careers and for whom the immigration investment makes sense beyond just NIL.

Not all NIL-adjacent income constitutes "employment" under immigration law. Certain passive income structures may be available to O-1A and P-1A athletes without triggering the unauthorized employment prohibition.

Royalty income: If the athlete licenses their name, image, or likeness to a third party in exchange for royalties — and the arrangement is truly passive, with no ongoing services required — this may not constitute "employment" in the immigration sense. The athlete is not performing services; they are licensing intellectual property.

Important caveats:

• The line between a royalty arrangement and a services arrangement is not always clear
• USCIS and courts look at the substance of the arrangement, not just its label
• An "NIL deal" that requires the athlete to post on social media, make appearances, or otherwise perform services is not a passive royalty arrangement
• This structure requires careful drafting and immigration counsel review

Best use case: Licensing arrangements for merchandise, video games, or other uses of the athlete's likeness that genuinely require no ongoing services from the athlete.

Two matters have attracted significant attention in the NIL immigration space: the reported O-1A approval of Hansel Enmanuel and the ongoing federal litigation in Poa v. Jaddou. Both are instructive. Neither is a safe harbor.

Hansel Enmanuel's reported O-1A approval demonstrates that USCIS may recognize a collegiate athlete's athletic achievements, media profile, social reach, and commercial NIL value as evidence supporting extraordinary ability. However, his approval was an individual, nonpublic USCIS adjudication — not a published court opinion or binding agency precedent. A new applicant may present Enmanuel as an analogous example, but USCIS is not required to approve another athlete merely because the facts appear similar.

The controlling authority remains the O-1A statute, regulations, and USCIS Policy Manual. The petition must establish either a major internationally recognized award or evidence satisfying at least three regulatory criteria, followed by a totality-of-the-evidence determination that the athlete has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of the field.

For a student-athlete, the strongest O-1A evidence ordinarily includes:

• National or international athletic awards and honors
• Published media coverage specifically about the athlete (not just general team coverage)
• Membership or selection for elite national teams or competitions
• International or national rankings
• A leading or critical role on a distinguished team
• High compensation, endorsement value, or unusually valuable NIL agreements
• Expert letters explaining the athlete's reputation and competitive standing
• Comparable evidence when the standard criteria do not readily apply to collegiate athletics

A note on social media reach: Follower counts alone are weak evidence. Social-media reach is more effective when connected to independent press coverage, verified engagement data, sponsorship offers, market valuations, major-brand interest, and evidence that the attention resulted from the athlete's accomplishments — not the other way around.

Using Enmanuel in a new petition: Reference him in the introductory legal discussion as evidence that the O-1A classification has previously been used for an international collegiate athlete pursuing NIL activities. Describe it as an analogous reported approval — not as precedent. The petition must then independently prove the athlete's extraordinary ability, sustained acclaim, that the proposed NIL work arises from and remains within the athlete's area of extraordinary ability, definite employment or engagements during the requested period, and that all proposed employers, sponsors, appearances, and services are properly covered by the petition.

The legal brief should expressly connect the NIL work to the athlete's expertise:

That connection matters. A petition based on athletic acclaim but seeking authorization for unrelated entertainment, modeling, or generic social-media work may face an evidentiary challenge.

Poa v. Jaddou challenges USCIS's denial of P-1A classification for an NCAA athlete. The case is significant because it contests the position that an NCAA athlete cannot satisfy the P-1A requirements merely because the athlete participates in collegiate rather than professional competition. In September 2025, the federal district court denied the government's motion to dismiss and allowed judicial review to continue.

That ruling was procedural. It did not:

• Approve Poa's P-1A petition
• Hold that NCAA athletes automatically qualify for P-1A status
• Authorize all international athletes to perform NIL services
• Create binding nationwide precedent

As of July 2026, the docket reflects a new government motion seeking dismissal based on mootness, together with Poa's response. The litigation remains unsettled. A more accurate description of the case's current posture:

Using Poa in a new petition: The case is most useful in a P-1A legal argument responding to a categorical objection that an NCAA athlete is merely an amateur or student and therefore cannot qualify. The governing standard is not whether the athlete is labeled "professional." The question is whether the athlete is internationally recognized, will participate in a specific athletic competition, the competition has a distinguished reputation, and the competition requires athletes of internationally recognized caliber.

For NCAA competition, the evidentiary record should include:

• National and international television viewership and media coverage
• Conference and NCAA competitive rankings
• International players participating in the conference or championship
• National-team members and future professional athletes in the competition
• Recruiting standards and selectivity
• Statements from governing-body officials, coaches, former professional athletes, and recognized sports journalists
• The athlete's participation in national-team or international competition
• International rankings, major awards, championships, and significant collegiate participation

The goal is to prove not merely that NCAA basketball (or any sport) is popular, but that the specific conference, schedule, tournament, or championship has a distinguished reputation and requires internationally recognized athletic performance.

O-1A is generally the stronger NIL vehicle when the athlete has an unusually prominent individual profile. It is better suited to a structured portfolio involving multiple endorsement companies, appearances, content productions, camps, sponsorships, and licensing arrangements. The evidentiary threshold is higher, but the proposed activities can be framed more naturally as continued work arising from the athlete's extraordinary ability.

P-1A may be appropriate when the athlete has strong international competitive credentials but cannot yet establish the higher O-1A extraordinary-ability standard. However, P-1A is more closely tied to participation in specific athletic competition, and the petition must carefully establish why the collegiate competition satisfies the statutory standard.

For either classification, the athlete should not begin compensated appearances, sponsored posts, promotional services, autograph sessions, camps, or other active NIL work until the appropriate petition and change of status become effective. Approval is also limited to the petitioner, employers, activities, and engagements covered by the petition.

Practical conclusion: Build the petition around the governing USCIS criteria. Use Enmanuel as an analogous approval and Poa as a developing legal argument, but do not characterize either matter as a binding NIL safe harbor.

Given the complexity of this area, it is worth being explicit about structures that do not work — and that can create serious immigration and tax problems.

Some athletes and collectives have attempted to characterize NIL payments as gifts to avoid both tax and immigration complications. This does not work. The IRS does not recognize payments made in exchange for services as gifts, regardless of how they are labeled. And USCIS looks at the substance of the arrangement — if the athlete is performing services in exchange for the payment, it is employment, not a gift.

Some advisors have suggested routing NIL payments through a foreign corporation or LLC owned by the athlete, with the theory that the athlete is not personally receiving U.S.-source employment income. This structure has significant problems:

• The athlete is still performing services in the United States, which is the activity that triggers the work authorization requirement
• The IRS will look through the foreign entity if it lacks substance
• This structure may create additional reporting obligations (FBAR, Form 5471) without solving the underlying immigration problem

University compliance offices are experts in NCAA eligibility rules. They are not immigration lawyers. The question of whether a specific NIL activity is authorized under an O-1A or P-1A visa is an immigration law question that requires immigration counsel. Relying on compliance office guidance for immigration questions is a common and potentially costly mistake.

Perhaps the most dangerous mistake is engaging in NIL activities first and seeking authorization later. There is no retroactive authorization in immigration law. If an O-1A or P-1A athlete has already received NIL income without proper authorization, they are in violation of their visa status. The only path forward is to consult with immigration counsel immediately about how to address the violation — which may include voluntary departure, adjustment of status, or other remedies depending on the circumstances.

Assuming the athlete has a compliant NIL structure in place, here is what the tax compliance picture looks like:

Determine residency status first. Run the Substantial Presence Test. If the athlete is a resident alien, they file Form 1040 and are taxed on worldwide income. If they are a nonresident alien, they file Form 1040-NR and are taxed only on U.S.-source income.

Identify applicable tax treaties. Check whether the athlete's home country has a treaty with the United States and whether any treaty provisions reduce withholding or tax on the NIL income.

Withholding on NIL payments. If the athlete is a nonresident alien, the NIL payor may be required to withhold 30% (or treaty-reduced rate) on payments. The payor should be filing Form 1042-S. The athlete should receive this form and use it to reconcile their tax return.

Self-employment tax analysis. Nonresident aliens are generally not subject to self-employment tax on self-employment income. Resident aliens are. This distinction can be significant for athletes who meet the SPT.

FICA on wages. If the NIL income is structured as wages (W-2 income) rather than self-employment income, FICA applies to resident aliens and to nonresident aliens on O-1A and P-1A visas (unlike F-1 and J-1 holders who are FICA-exempt).

State tax obligations. NIL income earned in a state is generally subject to that state's income tax, regardless of the athlete's visa status. Athletes competing in multiple states may have multi-state filing obligations.

Foreign bank account reporting. If the athlete maintains foreign financial accounts with aggregate balances exceeding $10,000 at any point during the year, FBAR filing (FinCEN Form 114) is required. This applies to both resident and nonresident aliens with U.S. tax filing obligations.

The intersection of NIL, immigration, and tax law is one of the most underserved areas in collegiate athletics. Most NIL advisors focus on deal structure and marketing. Most tax advisors focus on domestic athletes. Most immigration attorneys focus on the visa itself, not the downstream NIL implications.

O-1A and P-1A athletes are caught in the gap — and the stakes are high. A visa violation does not just affect the current season. It can result in removal from the United States, a bar on future visa applications, and permanent damage to an athletic career that may span decades.

The athletes who navigate this correctly are the ones who build a team: immigration counsel who understands NIL, a CPA who understands both international tax and athlete compensation, and a university compliance office that knows when to refer out.

We work with international athletes, their families, and their representatives to build compliant NIL structures from the ground up. Our practice covers the full intersection of international tax, athlete compensation, and cross-border compliance — including:

• Substantial Presence Test analysis and residency determination
• Treaty benefit identification and Form 8833 filing
• Withholding compliance for NIL payors working with international athletes
• FBAR and FATCA reporting for athletes with foreign financial accounts
• Coordination with immigration counsel on petition scope and amendment strategy
• Multi-state filing for athletes competing across state lines

If you are an O-1A or P-1A athlete, a university athletic program, or an NIL collective working with international athletes, contact us before the deal is signed — not after.

Schedule a consultation to discuss your specific situation.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Immigration law questions should be directed to qualified immigration counsel. Tax questions should be directed to a licensed CPA or tax attorney familiar with international athlete compensation.