Transatlantic Tug-of-War: How American NIL Deals Threaten the European Club Model

Written by Raghav Raj | March 26, 2026

Background

The rapid rise of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) compensation in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has caused a fundamental shift in collegiate athletics, turning the NCAA into a quasi-professional market (Bourdas, 2025).

Spurred by the landmark antitrust decisions such O’Bannon v. NCAA and the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in NCAA v. Alston (2021), student-athletes can now legally monetize their personal brands without forfeiting their eligibility (Justica, 2015; Oyez, 2021). Furthermore, the historic House v. NCAA settlement has introduced frameworks that allow schools to share millions in athletic revenue directly with athletes (Wright, 2025).

However, this swift commercialization of college sports has formed a glaring regulatory hole in the international sports market, putting the NCAA model on a collision course with global sports systems (Bourdas, 2025).

NIL’s International Allure

Unlike the US educational-athletic structure, international sports systems — the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) and the International Basketball Federation (FIBA), in particular — typically use a decentralized, club-based model (Bourdas, 2025).

In Europe, athletes often sign professional and remunerated contracts during their teenage years, and the systems rely heavily on youth academies and transfer fees to survive (Bourdas, 2025; KEA-CDES, 2013). 

Historically, the NCAA’s strict adherence to amateurism kept these two worlds largely separate (Bourdas, 2025). Today, however, NIL packages allow US universities to offer a tempting “triadic model” of financial, academic, and athletic benefits that rival, and often surpass, European entry-level professional contracts (Bourdas, 2025).

Consequently, top-tier European prospects like Aday Mara, Kasparas Jakucionis, and Egor Demin are increasingly migrating to the NCAA, causing a talent drain that threatens the economic viability of the European system from youth development to domestic leagues. 

This transatlantic divergence exposes a critical lack of international NIL standards, running the major risk of exploited loopholes, inconsistencies, etc. (Bourdas, 2025).

The Threat to the European Model

European clubs invest heavily in grassroots academics with the expectation of integrating players into senior squads or securing compensation.

This system was validated by the momentous ruling in Union Royale Belges des Societes de Football Association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman where modern rules regarding transfers and training compensation stem from.t

When elite European prospects depart early for lucrative NIL deals in the US, European clubs receive little to no return on their long, expensive investments which puts pressure on the sustainability of the system (Bourdas, 2025).

Unresolved Domestic Issues

The intersection of NIL with international contract law and immigration restrictions creates another problem. Currently, over 20,000 international NCAA athletes are largely excluded from the US NIL boom due to strict F-1 student visa regulations (Office of the General Counsel, n.d.).

Under 8 C.F.R. § 274a.1, “employment” is broadly defined, meaning that engaging in active NIL promotional work in the US would likely result in immediate visa termination and deportation (Hunton Andrews Kurth, 2025).

However, last September, a lawsuit from Last-Year Poa — a basketball player for Arizona State — to overturn the rejection of her P-1A visa, a form that allows international professional athletes to get paid in the US, withstood the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ move to dismiss (Murphy, 2025). With this momentum, this case has the potential to open the door for many international student-athletes to receive compensation.

Additionally, the blurring lines between NIL licensing and “pay-for-play” significantly complicate contract enforcement (Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, 2026).

As seen in recent transfer disputes, such as with quarterbacks Darian Mensah and Demond Williams Jr., schools are progressively seeking legal injunctions to enforce NIL buyout clauses and protect their investments (Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, 2026).

Proposed Legislation and Regulations

To prevent further market disruptions and protect athletes from legal jeopardy, international governing bodies and U.S. Congressman must pass regulation in tandem. I propose the following laws:

1. Amend the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act: Congress should make a statutory exemption for international student-athletes, similar to the P-1A visa for professional athletes, allowing them to legally engage in NIL deals (Office of the General Counsel, n.d.). If that approach doesn’t work, lawmakers could also explicitly define NIL-generated income as “passive income” under 26 U.S.C. § 469(c), which would allow international athletes to make money off their brand without violating current labor restrictions (Centner, 2024).

2. Establish Translative Training Compensation: To protect the European club model, international bodies like FIFA and FIBA should collaborate with the NCAA to enforce cross-border training compensation mechanisms (Bourdas, 2025). Implementing a standardized “Letter of Clearance” framework that requires universities or their affiliated collectives to compensate European training clubs would mitigate the financial losses caused by the early migration of talented players (Bourdas, 2025).

3. Standardize International NIL Contracts: The NCAA and international federations should establish consistent legal standards for NIL contracts to clarify the distinction between employment and endorsement licensing (Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, 2026). This would help resolve questions regarding buyout clauses and transfer portals (Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, 2026).

Conclusion

Allowing the American NIL market to continue to disrupt different international sport economies will create more inequalities that harms both players and the institutions. It’s more important than ever to create a strong, cohesive regulatory framework to keep NIL in check.

References

Bourdas, D. I., Bakirtzoglou, P., Theos, A., & Travlos, A. K. (2025). Amateurism in flux: NIL beyond borders and the strategic crossroads of European basketball. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 7, 1690859. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2025.1690859

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC. (2026, February 9). Legal Battles in College Sports: Enforcement of NIL Contracts and the Future of Athlete-Institution Agreements. https://www.bipc.com/legal-battles-in-college-sports-enforcement-of-nil-contracts-and-the-future-of-athlete-institution-agreements

Centner, C. K. (2024). Leveling the Playing Field: Navigating the ‘name, Image, And Likeness’ Rules for International Student-Athletes in the United States. University of Miami Comparative Law Review, 31(2), 433. https://repository.law.miami.edu/umiclr/vol31/iss2/7

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. (2025, July 28). Challenges for International Student-Athletes Navigating the NIL Landscape. https://www.hunton.com/insights/legal/challenges-for-international-student-athletes-navigating-the-nil-landscape

Justia. “O’Bannon v. NCAA, No. 14-16601 (9th Cir. 2015).” 2015. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/14-16601/14-16601-2015-09-30.html.