More than 70 lawsuits challenging NCAA eligibility rules have been filed in state and federal courts since 2024, and the pace accelerated in June 2026 after the NCAA replaced its longtime four-seasons-in-five-years framework with a new age-based model. An NCAA eligibility lawsuit today generally falls into one of two camps: athletes suing to squeeze another season out of the old rules, and athletes suing because the new rule arrived too late to help them. Courts have split roughly evenly on whether the association’s eligibility limits can be attacked under federal antitrust law at all.
Why Athletes Are Suing
The legal fight is really a fight about money. Once name, image, and likeness compensation turned college rosters into a commercial market, every lost season became a lost paycheck. Diego Pavia, the Vanderbilt quarterback whose 2024 case became the template for the wave, was found by a federal judge to stand to lose more than $1 million in NIL compensation if he were barred from a sixth season.1Athletic Business. How College Athletes Seek Legal Remedies Amid the Shifting Rules Landscape
Most plaintiffs bring antitrust claims, arguing the NCAA operates as a single buyer of athletic labor and that capping seasons is an unreasonable restraint on trade. They lean on the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston, which rejected the idea that “amateurism” shields the association from antitrust scrutiny.2Courthouse News Service. College Athlete Challenges NCAA Eligibility Rule A smaller group sues as third-party beneficiaries of the contract between their school and the NCAA, arguing that arbitrary waiver denials breach an implied duty of good faith.3Sportico. NCAA Eligibility Lawsuits Rules Reform
The NCAA’s New Age-Based Eligibility Rule
Facing the lawsuits and inconsistent rulings, the NCAA rewrote its system. On June 23, 2026, the Division I Cabinet unanimously approved an age-based eligibility model.4NCAA. Division I Adopts Age-Based Eligibility Model
Under the new framework, athletes get up to five years of eligibility. The clock starts at the earlier of two events: the term they first enroll full-time at any college, or the start of the academic year following their 19th birthday. Once it starts, it runs continuously. Transfers, injuries, and time off do not pause it.5NCAA. NCAA Division I Age-Based Eligibility Rules: Eligibility 101
The rule wipes out the old four-seasons-in-five system, ends athletic redshirts, and eliminates nearly all waivers, including medical hardship and season-of-competition waivers. The only pauses now allowed are for pregnancy, active-duty military service, or official religious missions, and only if the athlete doesn’t compete during the break.5NCAA. NCAA Division I Age-Based Eligibility Rules: Eligibility 101
Timing matters. The new rule is mandatory for anyone enrolling full-time starting fall 2027. During the 2026-27 transition year, schools apply whichever framework, old or new, gives the individual athlete more playing time. Crucially, the rule is not retroactive: athletes whose eligibility was exhausted by spring 2026 do not get any extra seasons. Schools had until July 31, 2026, to file any remaining waiver requests under the old rules.4NCAA. Division I Adopts Age-Based Eligibility Model
NCAA President Charlie Baker said the change was meant to “eliminate aspects of the rules that have proven difficult to administer in the current litigious environment.”6Reuters. NCAA Hit With Class Action Over New Age-Based Sports Eligibility Rule
The Lawsuits Attacking the New Rule
The new model drew a lawsuit within 24 hours. The complaint from the left-behind class is simple: future athletes get five full years, but athletes who used four years under the old system and would have qualified for a fifth under the new one get nothing.
Ohio Class Action
On June 24, 2026, attorneys Ryan Downton and Charles Rittgers filed a class action in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court in Cincinnati for 15 college basketball players. The plaintiffs, including Xavier’s Filip Borovicanin and Malik Messina-Moore and former Utah State players MJ Collins Jr. and Kolby King, all graduated high school in 2022, enrolled in college that fall, and never redshirted. They argue the new rule denies them a fifth season that is now available to future athletes and to certain other classes (2017-20 and 2023-25) that received extra eligibility through other means, and that it unjustifiably restrains their ability to earn NIL money.7Cincinnati Enquirer. Lawsuit Challenging New NCAA Eligibility Rules Filed in Ohio8Newsday. NCAA Eligibility Rules Lawsuit
Judge Chris Wagner denied a temporary restraining order the day of filing but set a full injunction hearing for July 1, 2026. Downton said the Ohio case was the first of five planned filings in different states covering more than 50 basketball players.7Cincinnati Enquirer. Lawsuit Challenging New NCAA Eligibility Rules Filed in Ohio
Federal Class Action: Campbell v. NCAA
A day later, on June 25, 2026, DeJuan Campbell, a Berkeley basketball player who finished his fourth year and graduated in 2026, filed a broader federal class action in the Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:26-cv-07467). The suit claims the new rule “imposes unreasonable age and waiver restrictions that arbitrarily and disparately cut short college athletes’ ability to compete” and earn NIL money. The proposed class covers thousands of current and former athletes who used up four years of eligibility by the end of the 2025-26 academic year.6Reuters. NCAA Hit With Class Action Over New Age-Based Sports Eligibility Rule
How Athletes Have Fared in Court So Far
Results have been mixed, and the outcome often depends on which court hears the case. Federal judges are roughly six-and-six on whether eligibility rules count as “commercial” restrictions reachable by antitrust law.9Front Office Sports. NCAA’s Recent Wins May Not Be Enough to Stop Flood of Eligibility Lawsuits State courts have generally been more willing to grant relief.10Morgan Lewis. Recent NCAA Eligibility Rulings Highlight Expanding Judicial Role in College Athletics Governance
Wins for athletes:
- Pavia v. NCAA: A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction letting Diego Pavia play a sixth season at Vanderbilt, finding “substantial anticompetitive effects in the labor market for college football.” The Sixth Circuit later dismissed the NCAA’s appeal as moot after the association itself gave Pavia a waiver, but declined to vacate the injunction.11U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Pavia v. NCAA, No. 24-6153
- Chambliss v. NCAA: A Mississippi chancery court granted a preliminary injunction on third-party beneficiary grounds, finding the NCAA’s denial of a medical waiver was inconsistent with its own bylaws and that losing an athletic season is irreparable harm.10Morgan Lewis. Recent NCAA Eligibility Rulings Highlight Expanding Judicial Role in College Athletics Governance
Losses for athletes:
- Robinson v. NCAA: A West Virginia federal court granted an injunction against the “JUCO Rule,” which counts junior college seasons toward the Division I limit. The Fourth Circuit vacated it in April 2026, ruling plaintiffs failed to meet their “heavy burden of proof as to anticompetitive effects.”12Fisher Phillips. What Athletic Departments Must Know About Recent Gains in Court and New Five-for-Five Proposal
- Elad v. NCAA: The Third Circuit agreed in November 2025 that the JUCO Rule is commercial in nature but vacated a lower-court injunction because the trial court hadn’t done a proper market analysis, leaning on Alston‘s market definition without current economic data.13McGuireWoods. Third Circuit Resets the Play on NCAA Athlete Eligibility
- Blythe v. NCAA: The Ninth Circuit reversed an injunction for a Nevada baseball player in April 2026, finding the rule’s procompetitive benefits outweighed the athlete’s lost opportunities.12Fisher Phillips. What Athletic Departments Must Know About Recent Gains in Court and New Five-for-Five Proposal
- Patterson v. NCAA: A class action from Vanderbilt, Wisconsin, and Nebraska players seeking to eliminate the four-season cap. Chief Judge William Campbell denied a preliminary injunction in January 2026, blocking the 19 plaintiffs from playing in 2026-27. The underlying case continues.14The Athletic. NCAA Redshirt Rules Langston Patterson Case
The NCAA has won a majority of eligibility cases overall, but the even split on the threshold antitrust question raises the prospect of a circuit split that could push the issue to the Supreme Court.9Front Office Sports. NCAA’s Recent Wins May Not Be Enough to Stop Flood of Eligibility Lawsuits
Transfer Rules: A Fight Already Won
The multi-transfer restriction is essentially gone. In December 2023, seven state attorneys general sued in the Northern District of West Virginia, challenging NCAA Bylaw 14.5.5.1, which forced second-time transfers to sit out a year. The court issued a preliminary injunction, finding the rule likely violated antitrust law and calling the NCAA’s justifications “pretextual.”15Clark Hill. Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of NCAA’s Transfer Eligibility Rule16U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. Order Granting TRO, Case No. 1:23-CV-100 The settlement of that case effectively enabled unlimited transfers in Division I.
What the House Settlement Does Not Cover
Athletes sometimes assume the House v. NCAA settlement, approved in June 2025, resolved eligibility questions. It didn’t. That settlement addressed compensation, allowing schools to pay athletes for NIL for the first time and setting a revenue-sharing cap around $20.5 million per school in year one.17Knight Commission. Knight Commission Brief, House v. NCAA Baker acknowledged in a June 2025 letter that eligibility remained a separate battleground and called for Congress to act.18NCAA. A Letter From NCAA President Charlie Baker
Executive Order and Pending Legislation
On April 3, 2026, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “Urgent National Action to Save College Sports,” encouraging governing bodies to adopt a five-year eligibility window by August 1, 2026, with exceptions for military and missionary service, and to allow one free transfer (a second permitted after earning a four-year degree).19The White House. Urgent National Action to Save College Sports
Two bills are in play. The Student Athlete Act of 2026, from Senator Tommy Tuberville and Representative Greg Steube, would set a federal five-year eligibility standard, limit athletes to one penalty-free transfer, and preempt conflicting state laws.20U.S. House of Representatives. Rep. Steube and Sen. Tuberville Introduce Student Athlete Act of 202621Morgan Lewis. Protect College Sports Act Reshapes NIL and Athlete Rights22U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Bipartisan Protect College Sports Act Advances to Full Senate23Politico. Cruz Sets Aggressive Timeline on College Sports Bill A federal antitrust exemption, if enacted, would sharply limit the kinds of lawsuits described above.
If You’re an Athlete Weighing a Suit
The practical picture as of late June 2026: if you were still competing in 2025-26, the transition-year rule requires your school to apply whichever framework helps you more, and any remaining waiver requests under the old rules had to be submitted by July 31, 2026. If your four years ran out by spring 2026, you are the target class for the Ohio state and Campbell federal actions, both in early stages. If you have JUCO time counting against you or a denied medical waiver, the case law is genuinely split, and where you file matters as much as what you file.