The recently introduced TEAM USA Act, sponsored by Senator Jon Husted (R-Ohio) and Representative Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), looks to transform Division I athletics. The bill intends to cap international student-athletes at 20 percent of each varsity team’s roster for colleges that receive federal student aid. Teams with fewer than 10 athletes (think triathlon) would be limited to a single international player. If passed, which is highly unlikely, the rule would start in the 2029–30 academic year to give schools time to change their recruiting plans. Such legislation would have a huge impact on Denver athletics, especially hockey and skiing. However, other teams like tennis and golf would be impacted as well.
Sponsors and supporters, including Tennis Hall of Fame President Patrick McEnroe, claim the bill protects roster spots and scholarships for American athletes. The lawmakers estimate that since 2001, the number of international students receiving scholarships has nearly tripled, from about 8,945 to roughly 25,000. Supporters of the Bill note that 65% of Team USA at the 2024 Paris Games had NCAA ties, but of 1,036 NCAA-affiliated athletes in Paris, only 385 competed for the United States.
The bill has no cosponsors listed yet and has not been scheduled for committee markup. Similar state-level proposals in Ohio, Idaho, and Oklahoma have not passed. This is the first federal attempt, and the first to use Title IX eligibility as the enforcement mechanism rather than NCAA rules. Proponents tied the bill to NIL as well, arguing that revenue sharing gives foreign athletes more incentive to “cash in on the American system.”
Opponents of the legislation, along with many college coaches and administrators, warn that caps could hurt team quality and diversity. They note that sports like tennis, golf, and ice hockey rely heavily on international recruitment to fill competitive rosters. This is especially true for smaller, less populated regions that must reach outside the United States to staff their rosters with quality athletes. And, ultimately, opponents argue that competition makes U.S. sports better for both athletes and spectators.
Ironically, the new law applies to any institution that receives student federal aid. However, foreign visa holders do not qualify for U.S. federal student aid anyway.
The Quinnipiac Chronicle published an article opposed to the legislation. The Chronicle stated, “Particularly for smaller conferences like the Metro conference and Northeastern conference, international players are a key component in finding talent that larger conferences miss out on. Establishing a strong recruiting presence internationally, particularly within a specific country, may be the key to bringing more athletes from the country in the future. Quinnipiac volleyball’s head coach, Kyle Robinson, has managed to achieve this with multiple Turkish players anchoring past Bobcat squads. Head coach of the men’s soccer team, Eric Da Costa, has recruited 10 Norwegian players during his tenure. The 2026 field hockey roster boasts six players from the Netherlands.”
As for the University of Denver, a number of sports would be hit hard by the proposed legislation (chart below). Denver currently has eleven teams that would be out of compliance, especially hockey and skiing.
Overall, Denver Athletics has benefitted by recruiting foreign athletes, and many have elected to eventually matriculate to the United States and become productive U.S. citizens. Furthermore, as a private institution, Denver is directing its own funds to recruit, sign, and host foreign student-athletes, not federal funds.
The bill still has a long way to go and faces significant resistance from the Democratic side of the aisle. Experts say it is highly unlikely that this bill even survives Committee, where the vast majority of all bills die. It will still be important to keep an eye on future Congressional sessions, should the sentiment surrounding this bill change in the coming years.
Top photo generated with AI
Good reporting.
I don’t think this bill will ever see a vote, let alone pass. Just some performative grandstanding by legislators reacting to their constituent college parent’s complaints that their little Johnny “would have a scholarship if it weren’t for big, bad Juan, Francois or Gunter.”
Good athletes want the best possible competition. I don’t care where the players come from, as long as they wear Denver on the front and play as hard as they can for our school.
Protectionism is a waste of time. Let the market determine who makes the grade.
I have heard the McEnroe side of the tennis issues and it includes European athletes that have gone pro, are in mid-20’s but not doing well enough on the tour to remain being a pro and then end up playing tennis for USA schools as an amateur. I’m all for getting hockey and lacrosse players from Canada but, I have to say, if we were able to recruit pro players, call me nuts, but I think that’s not what college level sports is about.
When I was an athlete at DU 20 years ago our team was 80% foreign.
To me it doesn’t make sense, particularly at the publicly funded schools, to be providing extensive athletic scholarships to international students. Those should largely go to Americans who have lived here, been developed by US athletic programs and whose parents pay taxes. I just don’t buy the argument that a large state school should have so many Europeans, South Americans etc on full ride athletic scholarship to play a non-revenue sport when they often move straight back to their home country after graduation.
Our program and many programs like ours that are so foreign heavy have basically no alumni presence because everyone leaves the country and literally might never come back to visit. They don’t care to support the program or DU from 7 time zones away and also haven’t grown up in the American culture that emphasizes college athletics. Hard to build a culture around that and even do basic fundraising, trust me its a lost cause. At least the American alumni who live out of state and don’t visit have some pride in the school and will donate to the school/program, even if modest. This also seems fundamentally unfair to local high school kids who are good players, deserve to play, but get edged out by some international kid who is also often a couple of years older at the time of recruitment anyway. This doesn’t seem in the spirit of what college athletics is supposed to be. Save a couple of spots for the internationals, fine, but shouldn’t be mostly that.
I don’t think the intent is to limit Canadian hockey players.
I like this legislation for publicly funded schools with regards to the non-revenue sports. Something like Hockey might make sense to try to carve out a clause about canadians or whatever because I think thats a fundamentally a different situation.
Thanks for the perspective PioJack. Always good to hear from someone who has experienced this issue first-hand.