How NIL Is Reshaping Legal Challenges to the NCAA's Five-Year Eligibility Rule

For decades, the NCAA's five-year clock rule has set a clear boundary on how long student-athletes can compete. NIL has changed the legal conversation around that boundary considerably.

Courts and athletes are now arguing with growing force that eligibility restrictions effectively function as labor market restraints that limit earning potential in a commercial space. Understanding these challenges is increasingly important for athletes thinking about their eligibility options and long-term financial picture.

What the NCAA Five-Year Rule Is

Under Division I rules, athletes are allowed four seasons of competition that must occur within five calendar years. The clock begins when the athlete first enrolls as a full-time college student. Important characteristics include:

• The clock continues even if the athlete stops playing
• Redshirt years still count toward the five-year window
• Time away from school generally does not pause the clock

The rule was originally put in place to encourage academic progress, put a limit on how long athletes could compete, and bring stability to program rosters. For a long time, courts were largely content to defer to the NCAA's authority over eligibility standards, treating it as a reasonable exercise of oversight over amateur athletics.

Why the Rule Is Being Challenged Now

Legal challenges to NCAA eligibility rules have increased significantly since NIL became permissible, and the reasoning behind them has shifted in important ways. The ability to monetize their identity has changed the legal context for athletes in a fundamental sense. Courts and litigants are increasingly making the case that eligibility restrictions no longer just govern amateur participation but now directly affect a commercial labor market.

A federal court has noted that the modern college athlete operates in an environment where compensation is possible, which changes how eligibility rules should be understood legally. If those rules regulate participation in an economic marketplace, antitrust challenges become much more viable than they were when courts viewed college sports through a purely amateur lens.

Antitrust Arguments Against the Rule

A growing number of lawsuits allege that the five-year rule violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. The core argument is that the rule restricts athlete earning opportunities, cutting off NIL endorsements, sponsorship deals, and brand-building potential when eligibility runs out. A lawsuit filed by Tennessee basketball player Zakai Zeigler made that case directly, arguing that losing eligibility could cost him millions in NIL earnings tied to continued college participation.

Athletes are also making a broader argument that the five-year rule suppresses competition in the athlete labor market. The NCAA, as a centralized governing body, restricts employment opportunities, caps competitive years, and limits NIL income, and athletes say that's an antitrust problem. It's an argument that draws directly from the logic of NCAA v. Alston, which did serious damage to the NCAA's long-held position that amateurism rules should be insulated from standard antitrust analysis.

Key Lawsuits Challenging the Five-Year Rule

The growing tension around eligibility restrictions is playing out in real cases, and several recent ones tell that story well.

Martinson v. NCAA (2025)

After spending time in junior college before transferring, former UNLV football player Tatuo Martinson found himself fighting the five-year rule in court. A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction letting him compete, concluding that NCAA eligibility restrictions may be subject to antitrust review in a marketplace shaped by NIL. The court highlighted the commercial environment college athletes now operate in as a reason the NCAA's amateur and educational justifications carry less weight than they once did.

Robinson v. NCAA

Several transfer athletes challenged the rule after their eligibility expired due to years spent at junior colleges. The lawsuit alleges violations of federal antitrust law, tortious interference with NIL opportunities, and interference with contracts with schools and sponsors. The players argued they lost the ability to compete and earn NIL income because of the rule, creating economic harm beyond just athletic participation.

Jett Elad Lawsuit

After the NCAA denied additional eligibility to a Rutgers football transfer, he took the fight to court, arguing the restriction had blocked a $500,000 NIL deal dependent on his participation. The case reflects how thoroughly NIL has transformed eligibility disputes, elevating them from administrative academic decisions into commercially significant legal battles.

Special Impact on Junior College Transfers

For JUCO athletes, the five-year rule creates a particularly difficult situation. Junior college playing time typically counts against the clock, even though those programs operate outside the NCAA, which means many JUCO transfers:

• Lose NCAA seasons of competition
• Have fewer opportunities to build NIL value
• Face shorter timelines to attract professional attention

Courts are increasingly viewing this structure as potentially unfair, given the commercial realities of the NIL era. When time at non-NCAA institutions counts against your eligibility clock while also blocking NIL income at that level, the restriction starts to look like an unreasonable restraint on earning capacity.

The NIL Economy Changes the Legal Analysis

When NIL didn't exist, courts were generally comfortable treating NCAA eligibility rules as tools for preserving amateur athletics. That framing is harder to sustain now that athletes can earn significant money through endorsements, sponsorships, brand deals, social media revenue, and collective payments. In a commercial environment like that, eligibility restrictions start to look more like labor market restraints than academic regulations.

Some courts have therefore suggested that the NCAA's eligibility rules must be evaluated under traditional antitrust standards rather than receiving special deference. That shift in how courts approach the question represents a fundamental change in how college athletics and athlete rights are viewed legally.

Additional Eligibility Disputes

Individual eligibility disputes continue to emerge alongside the headline lawsuits, with athletes challenging sixth-season denials, clock calculations, and COVID and medical exemptions. Courts have occasionally granted injunctions to keep athletes on the field while cases proceed, and the growing frequency of these challenges reflects how much has changed in how athletes respond to NCAA eligibility decisions.

Potential Future Changes

The pressure of ongoing litigation and settlements is forcing the NCAA to take a hard look at potential eligibility rule changes. The reforms on the table include:

• Modifying the five-year clock structure
• Allowing additional seasons of competition
• Creating more flexibility for transfers and JUCO athletes
• Restructuring eligibility rules as part of broader NIL governance reforms

However, no permanent nationwide change has yet been adopted, leaving athletes in legal limbo.

Navigate Eligibility Challenges with Southeast Athlete Advisory

What began as a rule to govern amateur college sports now intersects directly with sponsorship deals, endorsements, and meaningful commercial opportunities. Courts and athletes are pushing back on whether eligibility limits can lawfully restrict participation in what looks increasingly like a labor market. These challenges may ultimately reshape eligibility structures across the NCAA. Contact Southeast Athlete Advisory to learn how evolving litigation affects your rights and options.