On June 23, 2026, the NCAA revised its Division I eligibility rules by adopting a new age-based model commonly referred to as “5-in-5.” We previously wrote about this new rule here. Under the new rule, student-athletes may compete in five seasons of their college sport, with eligibility beginning when they enroll in college and running no later than the academic year in which they turn 19. The change marks a significant departure from the NCAA’s prior framework, which generally allowed four seasons of competition within a five-year eligibility window. The NCAA, however, has not applied the new rule retroactively to all student-athletes, leaving one group in a difficult position: 2022 high school graduates who already exhausted, or are close to exhausting, their eligibility under the old system. Those athletes argue they were uniquely disadvantaged by the overlap of COVID-era eligibility waivers, evolving NIL opportunities, and the NCAA’s decision to extend benefits to other classes of student-athletes while excluding them.
Amanda Romano*
*Amanda Romano is a 2026 summer associate with Troutman Pepper Locke and not admitted to practice law in any jurisdiction.
MMRs and Third-Party Sponsors Are Associated Entities Under the House Settlement
On June 25, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the House plaintiffs’ motion to exclude multimedia rights companies (MMRs) and third-party sponsors from the definition of associated entities under the House settlement enforcement.[1] Class counsel filed a motion seeking clarity on the definition of “associated entities or individuals,” arguing:
The Great Divide Post-House: CSC Enforcement and the Power Four Conferences
Following the district court’s approval of the House settlement in 2025, in which Division I schools that opted into the settlement were allowed to directly compensate student-athletes, schools began looking for ways to remain competitive in recruiting and retention. Some have turned to third-party multimedia rights companies (MMRs) to structure NIL opportunities outside the revenue-sharing amount. That strategy has now placed MMRs at the center of a larger enforcement dispute: whether these entities should be treated as “associated entities” subject to heightened review by the College Sports Commission (CSC).