No Foreign NIL Funds Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]
- Committees
- Foreign Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 5, 2026
Bottom line
The 'No Foreign NIL Funds Act' aims to insulate U.S. collegiate athletics from foreign financial influence by broadly prohibiting foreign investment in NIL deals and major revenue streams, backed by federal oversight and significant penalties.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits foreign nationals and entities from providing any benefit or contribution related to Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements to covered entities, including student athletes, institutions of higher education, and NIL collectives. It also bans certain state-controlled foreign investments in collegiate athletics revenue streams, such as media rights and sponsorships. The bill establishes disclosure requirements for foreign solicitations and financial considerations, grants federal agencies investigative authority, and imposes severe penalties for violations, including the potential loss of federal student aid for institutions and civil/criminal penalties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to protect the integrity of collegiate athletics from undue foreign influence and potential exploitation of student athletes by foreign actors. They contend that safeguarding the financial landscape of college sports from state-controlled foreign entities aligns with national security interests and ensures transparency in financial dealings involving international actors.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill could severely limit legitimate revenue opportunities for student athletes and institutions, potentially hindering their financial well-being and competitiveness in a global sports environment. They may also raise concerns about the broad definition of 'foreign country' unnecessarily restricting engagement with close allies, and the administrative burden and potential for federal overreach in enforcing these extensive prohibitions.
The bill is concise, but understanding its full implications requires careful attention to definitions and cross-references to existing statutes, making a quick read insufficient for full comprehension.
Section 2(a)
Prohibition on Foreign Compensation for NIL Agreements
This provision makes it illegal for any national or entity of a foreign country (as defined in the bill) to provide any benefit or contribution, whether monetary or in-kind, to a 'covered entity' in relation to a Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreement. Covered entities include student athletes, institutions of higher education, and organizations that manage NIL funds for student athletes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision protects student athletes and institutions from potential exploitation or undue influence by foreign actors, ensuring the integrity and fairness of collegiate sports.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this provision unfairly limits revenue opportunities for student athletes, particularly those with international appeal, and could put U.S. collegiate sports at a disadvantage compared to international athletic opportunities.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances national security and integrity concerns against potential economic benefits for student athletes and institutions from foreign NIL opportunities.
Section 2(b)
Transparency Requirement for Foreign NIL Solicitations
Any 'covered entity' (including student athletes, institutions, or NIL collectives) that is solicited by a foreign national or entity regarding a Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreement must document these solicitation attempts. This documentation must then be filed with both the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education, regardless of whether an agreement is ultimately reached.
Section 2(d)
Compliance with Act as Condition for Federal Student Aid
This section amends the Higher Education Act of 1965, making compliance with the 'No Foreign NIL Funds Act' a mandatory condition for institutions to participate in federal student aid programs. Institutions must also establish policies to prohibit student athletes who violate the Act from participating in intercollegiate athletics for one year and to notify all student athletes annually of these requirements. Institutions found in violation by federal authorities will become ineligible for federal programs until they demonstrate full compliance and divest any prohibited funds.
Section 2(e)
Penalties for Covered Entities
Covered entities, including student athletes, institutions, and NIL collectives, that violate the foreign NIL fund prohibitions are subject to the same civil and criminal penalties as those imposed under subsections (b) and (c) of section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). These penalties can include significant fines (up to $1,000,000 for entities, $250,000 for individuals) and imprisonment for up to 20 years.
Section 3(a)
Prohibition on Foreign Country Investment in Collegiate Athletics Revenue Streams
This section prohibits institutions of higher education, athletic conferences, media rights distributors, and bowl or post-season football organizations from engaging in any contract, partnership, sponsorship, or media-rights arrangement that involves direct or indirect financing, ownership, or material participation by a 'foreign country.' It also bans these entities from engaging in 'covered activities' (such as naming rights, media rights, and sponsorships) with a foreign country.
The bill defines 'foreign country' as any country except members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland. This means that investment or compensation from any other country, including many close U.S. allies (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Canada, non-NATO EU members), would be prohibited under this Act.
Section 4(6)
Why it matters:While it is standard legislative practice to define terms in a dedicated section, the specific exclusions and inclusions within this definition have significant policy implications that could easily be overlooked without careful reading.
Case for: Proponents might argue this specific list focuses on countries with the strongest strategic alignment with the U.S., thereby minimizing potential risks from other nations and ensuring that only trusted partners are exempt from the prohibitions.
Case against: Critics could argue this narrow definition arbitrarily excludes many close allies and significant economic partners, unnecessarily restricting legitimate international engagement and investment that could benefit U.S. collegiate athletics.
Estimated impact: This definition significantly limits the pool of permissible foreign investors and partners for NIL agreements and collegiate athletics revenue streams, impacting a vast number of potential international relationships.
The bill cross-references Section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for penalties. This means violations of the 'No Foreign NIL Funds Act' are subject to IEEPA's civil and criminal penalties, which can include fines of up to $1,000,000 per violation for entities, up to $250,000 for individuals, and imprisonment for up to 20 years.
Sections 2(e) and 3(c)
Why it matters:It is a common legislative drafting technique to incorporate existing penalty structures by reference. However, for a casual reader, this obscures the extremely severe nature of the potential consequences for violations, which are typically reserved for national security and sanctions breaches.
Case for: Proponents would argue that using IEEPA penalties signals the seriousness of the perceived threat from foreign influence in collegiate athletics and provides a strong, established enforcement framework that acts as a significant deterrent.
Case against: Opponents might contend that applying such severe penalties, typically reserved for national security and sanctions violations, is disproportionate for issues related to collegiate sports and could lead to overly harsh punishments for individuals or institutions.
Estimated impact: This provision establishes extremely severe potential consequences for violations, acting as a significant deterrent and raising the stakes considerably for any entity found in non-compliance.