Student-Athletes Challenge NCAA's Five-Year Rule in Courts

Strategic Insights -

As the new school year begins, a growing number of student-athletes have successfully challenged the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) Five-Year Rule in court, allowing them to continue their collegiate careers. The decisions, which have been issued in several U.S. District Courts, have led to the NCAA granting waivers for the 2025-26 school year to student-athletes who transferred from Junior Colleges (JUCOs) and exhausted their eligibility under the Five-Year Rule in the 2024-25 school year. However, not all student-athletes have been successful in their challenges, and the NCAA has appealed several of the decisions. The cases have the potential to create a circuit split, which could be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Five-Year Rule requires student-athletes to complete four years of competition within five years of full-time enrollment at a collegiate institution. However, student-athletes have argued that the rule is commercial in nature and subject to the Sherman Act's prohibition on agreements that unreasonably restrain trade. In December 2024, a U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction against the NCAA's enforcement of the Five-Year Rule, paving the way for several other student-athletes to file similar antitrust suits.

Student-athletes who have successfully challenged the Five-Year Rule include:

  • Pavia v. NCAA: A football player was granted a preliminary injunction after the court found that the student-athlete was likely to succeed on the merits of his antitrust challenge to the NCAA, including his time at a JUCO.
  • Elad v. NCAA: A football player was granted a preliminary injunction after the court applied similar reason to the Pavia court and found that the NCAA's denial of his waiver request was unreasonable.
  • Braham v. NCAA: A football player was granted a preliminary injunction after the court applied similar antitrust reasoning to challenges of the Five-Year Rule and other eligibility rules.
  • Martinson v. NCAA: A preliminary injunction was granted to a football player in his challenge of the Five-Year Rule's application to his time at a JUCO.
  • Robinson, et al. v. NCAA: Four football players were granted a preliminary injunction in their challenges to the Five-Year Rule after withdrawing from the NFL draft.

Conversely, some student-athletes who challenged the Five-Year Rule have been unsuccessful in their claims. In the spring, several baseball players sought to extend the NCAA's waiver for the 2025-26 school year to their pending 2025 seasons, but their request was denied. In August, a U.S. District Court in California found that eligibility rules are not tied to compensation or commercial transactions and denied a preliminary injunction to three football players.

The NCAA has appealed all of the preliminary injunctions granted this past spring and summer, and the cases are being heard in four different circuits. The Seventh Circuit has already reversed a district court's preliminary injunction in a 2-1 decision, finding that the student-athlete did not adequately establish his antitrust challenge. The Sixth Circuit, Third Circuit, and Ninth Circuit are scheduled to hear argument in the cases this month, with the potential for a circuit split and eventual review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. The content of this article is not a substitute for specialist advice. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.