International student-athletes began playing on US intercollegiate teams in the 1950s. Today they participate in Divisions I, II or III of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA); the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA); and Community College/Junior College programs across the country.
American football and men’s and women’s basketball enrich schools thanks to season and individual game ticket sales, income resulting from food, drink and souvenir purchases at events – which combine with mammoth television contracts to generate significant revenue for the conferences and member institutions.
As a result, football and basketball lock together like Lego to finance the non-revenue sports – baseball, golf, gymnastics, soccer, tennis, track and field/cross country, rowing and wrestling – because these activities don’t provide appreciable attendance revenue or have such profitable television coverage arrangements.
It was noted that there were more than 700 DI, DII, DIII and NAIA football players from abroad in 2025-‘26. Moving to DI basketball, the women with 951 international players on their rosters led the men who had 888. Credible totals for men’s DII, DIII and NAIA international basketball participants were not available. But another source claimed that DI, DII and DIII women’s programs had almost 1,500 international players.
As Mark Twain wrote, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics”, which is the reason the percentages used in this story should be qualified by “supposedly…”.
Glancing at the percentages and numbers of international athletes on various teams was revealing. In 2026, men’s baseball and women’s softball players from abroad were minimal. Men’s DI golf listed 33% international athletes while DII and NAIA were 27% and the breakdowns for the women were similar. One site said that the Top 10 DI men’s teams such as Arizona State, Arkansas, Pepperdine, Mississippi and Texas had between five and seven members from another country.
Men’s and women’s gymnastics had fewer than 100 DI international participants. Track and field was “around” 10% for the men and for the women it was 12%. Given soccer’s legacy, it wasn’t surprising to discover that 38% of those on men’s rosters were internationalists, but it was strange that only 12% of the women are.
Using the list of 2025 All-American cross-country selections the men with 73% dominated the overall international participation category ahead of the women who were 63%.
It was reported that in 2026, 62% of the eight rowers and coxswain on men’s and women’s DI teams had international backgrounds. Nothing was available regarding the number of wrestlers who were not from the US.
These details provide a basis to compare intercollegiate tennis. Early this year, data indicated that 60% of the DI men and 66% of the women were from other countries.
For DII, the figures were 55% for the men and 48% for the women…. With analysis, the DI and DII percentages furthered the “Storytelling…”
On the DIII level the international tally dropped to about 10% for the men and 9% for the women and the reason will be explained… The “guesstimated” for NAIA schools was 60+% of the performers were not from the US.
Before the current US government, playing at a college/university offered an international tennis player an alternative path, a practical way to develop. Rather than joining the pro ranks after completing a junior career, the player could take advantage of excellent coaching, a balanced competitive schedule, dietary, fitness, mental and residential support, along with the camaraderie of being on a team, all while working toward a degree.
The number of former intercollegiate standouts in the 2026 Australian Open Singles draws expanded the story since 25 men, and 9 women had intercollegiate backgrounds. Had Doubles and Mixed Doubles players been included, the total would have been higher. Also, the college/university men’s participation was the most that appeared at the AO since 1989.
It is important to clarify… intercollegiate tennis is an “Equivalency Sport” meaning the term “Full scholarship”, though often used, is not accurate… it is a misnomer. In 2026, DI men’s scholarships increased from 4.5 to 10 while women’s remained at 8 per team, but none of these were “full rides”. Teams generally had between 8 and 12 (perhaps as many as 15) players on their rosters… and for the most part, the No. 1 player on a team received more financial support than any of their colleagues.
Even more important, the money provided covered only a portion of an individual’s tuition. If a player was not a resident of the state where the school was located, the cost was more. All of which meant those playing college/university tennis needed a school’s direction when it came to securing academic scholarships, financial aid or student loans to minimize student-athlete debt.
This year, DII men’s programs offered up to 4.5 scholarships and the women had 6.4.
The percentage of DIII men’s and women’s international players was pointed out earlier. The totals were anemic because the rules state DIII institutions cannot offer tennis scholarships. But academic scholarships, as well as merit and need-based agreements, were available.
It is important to bring out that while they have DI status, the eight Ivy League schools – Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Pennsylvania and Dartmouth – like the DIII schools – do not offer men’s or women’s athletic scholarships.
The 2026 NAIA men’s and women’s programs divide a maximum of five scholarships per team. To qualify a player had to register with the NAIA Eligibility Center and meet two of three requirements: 18 ACT/860+ SAT (pre-2019) or 970+ SAT (post-2019), a 2.0+ GPA, or have a top 50% class ranking.
An intercollegiate tennis coach’s role, besides dealing with shrinking team budgets, is made more complex by recruiting – having to judge the worthiness of a scholarship candidate is an everchanging and challenging test.
Over the years, I have written about the angst that percolated in the tennis community among prospects, parents and administrators because so many international players were receiving tennis scholarships. Without being encyclopedic, the reason was simple… “Decisions were reality based…”
Being from the US and being decent, not “a cut above”, did not make a player scholarship worthy. But not to be overlooked, there have been coaches who relied almost solely on American players. Over the years their teams had records that fluctuated as a result of abiding by the “homegrown” philosophy rather than pursuing the best player available, no matter where they were from.
Coaches are always looking for prospects, so they attend elite sectional, national and international junior tournaments. “You should watch…” suggestions from trusted sources such as former players and from those leading local and national junior development programs are always appreciated… as are tips from fellow coaches.
Beginning in 2016, Universal Tennis Rating (UTR) became another information source because it uses a reliable scale, an established continuum, to evaluate national and international players.
Annual events in Europe showcasing boys and girls enable coaches to scout youngsters. This spring and summer the following are scheduled:
French Touch Academy Showcase – Cap d’Agde, France – June 8-10
Keystone Sports College Tennis Showcase – Frankfurt, Germany – July 9-12
Slamstox/Amjoy College Tennis Showcase – Eindhoven, Netherlands – July 12-14
Global College USA Showcase – Madrid, Spain – July 16-19
UNISPORTS College Tennis Showcase – Zurich, Switzerland – July 24-26
I must add, having coached on the intercollegiate level and crafted portraits of those who guided men’s and women’s teams, it is important to remember though one can’t select his/her family, a prospect can choose a coach.
More to the point, a team reflects that individual… his/her personality is the team’s, quirks and all… leading to the caution there are some one would want to play for and some who would not provide the optimum setting to realize goals. This is why the choice should be made by the player, not the parents, the coaches, or brought about by outside pressures…
The NAIA began Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) in 2020. By July 2021, NIL opportunities enhanced intercollegiate tennis at major schools in major conferences. The NIL formula allows players to be compensated for endorsements and social media arrangements. In some instances, players can be paid for giving private lessons and clinics as well as being part of fundraising activities.
NIL has dramatically changed the intercollegiate tennis landscape. The men’s programs that have benefitted at “Name” schools include the Universities of Virginia, Ohio State, Wake Forest, Stanford and Texas… along with Duke, Kentucky, Texas A&M, San Diego and Arizona. University of Georgia, UCLA, and USC are also part of the mix.
For the women, Stanford, North Carolina, Texas A&M, Georgia and Duke Universities have acknowledged status… as do Michigan, Pepperdine, Oklahoma State, Florida, Georgia and UCLA.
NIL is boon for US born players. But using newspaper terminology, it is been made a below the fold story for international players. And it shouldn’t be because their participation is so significant, yet they are excluded from receiving NIL benefits due to F-1 visa stipulations. Immigration law prohibits engaging in off-campus employment or generating US-based income.
Intercollegiate tennis has been further affected by the current administration’s efforts to increase the difficulty in obtaining F-1 visas, as well as the desire to limit their length. True, an O-1A visa, requiring proof of extraordinary ability could be an alternative but securing one is complicated made more so by the prevailing attitude… which is why international players rely on F-1 visas.
In August of last year, Kevin Theos – a former intercollegiate tennis player, an Elite Professional, and a National Racquet Sports Association Vice President – founded Theos Immigration Law LLC, a boutique firm that guides international tennis players, other athletes and coaches through the US immigration maze.
In recent years, the wealth of sports-watching opportunities in the US has increased, matching the growing interest in intercollegiate tennis. Driven by the fact that DI, DII, DIII and NAIA, along with Community College/Junior College competition – whether team matches or tournament play – can be “edge of your seat” compelling, the game has become even more appealing.
Borrowing from Shakespeare… these should be “salad days” for intercollegiate tennis and the players but nothing is ever as simple as it seems…
Which is the reason the words of Chilean poet Pablo Neruda should be remembered. In the early 1970s, he said, “They can cut all the flowers, but they can’t stop the spring…”.
Even better would be adopting the pragmatism of Olympic Gold Medalist Alysa Liu who said, “What I needed was the stage. And I got that…”
And now intercollegiate tennis needs to find ways to realize it does too…
Then take full advantage…
Addendum…
Community Colleges/Junior Colleges are two-year public schools offering Associate of Art and Associate of Science degrees that are gateways for international student-athletes to participate in college/university programs.
The National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) with 500+ members, the California Community College Athletic Association (CCCAA) with 111 members and the Northwest Athletic Conference (NWAC) with 37 members means a total of 648 institutions provide a variety of sports for those from abroad.
For years, Modesto Junior College (MJC), had a reputation for developing outstanding tennis players, coached by the renowned Fred Earle Jr. In the 1950s one of the legendary teams included Whitney Reed, Jerry DeWitts, Ralph Freund and Stan Canter… it was followed by one that featured Alex Olmedo of Peru, Pancho Contreras and Joaquin Reyes, both from Mexico. Later, Lorne Main, a Canadian, attended MJC and so did Brazilian Carlos Kirmayar.
From 1980 to ‘82, Brad Gilbert was a Foothill Community College competitor. Between 1981 and ’83 Mikael Pernfors from Sweden was a Seminole Community College standout.
Each of these players went on to have acclaimed college/university careers indicating the impact two year schools have had on intercollegiate tennis…
In fact, Contreras and Reyes, playing for USC, won the 1955 NCAA Men’s Doubles. The next year Olmedo was the singles champion and with Contreras claimed the doubles. Olmedo doubled again in 1958 taking the singles and earning doubles honors with Ed Atkinson. Reed, representing San Jose State University, was the 1959 NCAA Men’s Singles titlist. Pernfors was the last of the two-year school graduates to be acknowledged winning the 1984 and ’85 Men’s Singles while attending the University of Georgia.
Late in 2025, there were around 23,000 international Community Colleges/Junior College student-athletes in the country and they faced the same F-1 visa contentiousness as their DI, DII, DIII and NAIA compatriots…
Here’s hoping that all of these men and women find a way to fulfill their potential and more important accomplish their dreams…
Title photo by KCM Galleries of a painting by José Cascales