The NCAA’s eligibility rules have been facing growing antitrust pressure as athletes argue that limits on how long they can compete effectively limit how long they can earn from name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) opportunities and revenue-sharing income tied to Division I sports. Current NCAA Bylaw 12.6 allows Division I athletes five years to complete four seasons of competition, with exceptions tied to injuries, illnesses, transfers, and redshirt rules. Athletes are challenging those rules as anticompetitive under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The current litigation landscape.

In NCAA v. Alston, the Supreme Court held that the NCAA’s restriction of education-related benefits for student-athletes violated § 1 of the Sherman Act. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the lower courts’ application of the rule of reason, rejecting the NCAA’s argument that its compensation rules should receive a more deferential antitrust standard simply because they relate to amateur college sports. In settling the class action matter House v. NCAA, the NCAA created a court-approved framework by which Division I schools may now pay student athletes for their name, image, and likeness; athletes may also receive NIL compensation from third parties outside of their school. Through this series of cases, the courts have affirmed that NCAA athletes may be paid and confirmed that the NCAA is subject to the Sherman Act.

While the NCAA does not pay student athletes directly, its rules impact how and when students may be eligible to compete, which in turn affects their compensation.  Courts are therefore increasingly being asked to decide whether the NCAA’s eligibility restrictions and other rules affect an athlete’s ability to participate in a labor market and continue earning NIL compensation. NCAA athletes have taken to the litigation strategy of pursuing preliminary injunctions that allow them to compete while their case is pending. For athletes, that relief is often the ideal outcome: they can play through the season, and because the season usually ends before courts reach the merits of their case, the case likely becomes moot.  

Diego Pavia’s challenge to the junior-college rule, which counted his one year of junior college competition in a non-NCAA division as using one year of NCAA eligibility, illustrates this strategy. Seeking a preliminary injunction, Pavia argued that because the NCAA permits NIL compensation, eligibility limits restrict athletes’ abilities to compete and earn, making those rules commercial restraints subject to antitrust review. The NCAA argued the rules serve procompetitive goals, including preserving the character of intercollegiate athletics, increasing participation opportunities, and maintaining alignment between athletics and academics. 

In granting the request for a preliminary injunction, the district court found that Pavia had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his § 1 claim. It reasoned that the rule could have anticompetitive effects because athletes who start at Division I programs may receive more seasons to compete and earn than similarly situated athletes who begin at junior colleges. 

The litigation strategy of pursuing an injunction has also been used in non-antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA. In May, Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby filed for a temporary injunction against the NCAA for declaring him ineligible due to Sorsby betting on sports while an NCAA student-athlete, which is impermissible under NCAA Bylaw 10.3. On June 8, the Court granted Sorsby’s temporary injunction allowing him to compete in the upcoming season for the Red Raiders. After much media attention and the Big 12 filing suit against Texas Tech for declaratory relief that Big 12 sanctions on TTU are not a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, Sorsby’s legal team stated Sorsby was applying for the NFL supplemental draft and the lawsuit would be withdrawn.  

Developments that could reshape NCAA eligibility rules and related antitrust litigation. 

Recently, there have been a number of developments that could reshape an athlete’s strategy for challenging NCAA regulations under the Sherman Act. On April 3, the Trump Administration issued an executive order recommending participation limits of no more than five years, subject to limited exceptions. § 4(b). Shortly thereafter, on May 22, the NCAA advanced its proposed “Five-for-Five” model for further study, which would provide five consecutive seasons of eligibility upon enrollment at a university or at the beginning of the academic year following their 19th birthday, whichever comes first.  

Further, Congress is weighing limited antitrust protections regarding athlete eligibility and transfer limits. On May 27, Senators Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell introduced the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act (S.4668). The bill would adopt a “Five-for-Five” eligibility model, with some exceptions. It would guarantee athletes one transfer without a loss of eligibility but require athletes who transfer a second time to sit out a year, with limited exceptions. Notably, the NCAA would receive limited antitrust protections from litigation regarding athlete transfer and eligibility limits.  

How collegiate athletic departments should respond.  

Athletic departments must comply with NCAA rules in order to compete and should closely monitor these rules for changes. Athletics departments should prepare and be aware that eligibility rules, in particular, may change due to litigation, and these changes will impact rosters, scholarship allocation, and recruiting. NIL agreements with current student athletes should also crafted to address changes in eligibility or availability that may arise.  

Madison Adkins is a JD candidate at Emory Law School who joined Hunton Andrews Kurth as a Summer Associate in 2026.