Legislation Updates

Subscribe to Legislation Updates via RSS

The Wisne July 31 Orders

On July 8, 2026, a group of Division I athletes led by Brock Wisne sued the NCAA, challenging the implementation of the new five-year eligibility model. The plaintiffs alleged that the NCAA unlawfully excluded athletes who enrolled in 2022, competed in four seasons, and were denied a fifth season solely because they had already exhausted four seasons under the prior framework. The preliminary-injunction motion proceeded primarily under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, although the complaint also pleaded contract and declaratory-judgment theories that were not central to the injunction ruling.

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.

On June 23, 2026, the NCAA Division I Cabinet unanimously approved a historic overhaul of student-athlete eligibility rules, adopting an age-based model that grants student-athletes five full seasons of competition after entering college. The vote marks the most significant structural change to NCAA eligibility rules in decades and resolves — at least formally — a system that had become both legally vulnerable and administratively unworkable.

This week, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed a lawsuit brought by four former University of Michigan football players who claimed they had been deprived of profits derived from use of their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Judge Terrence G. Berg granted the motion to dismiss filed by defendants NCAA, the Big Ten Conference, and the Big Ten Network, holding that the statute of limitations had run on claims of all four former players.