NCAA Bylaws

Subscribe to NCAA Bylaws via RSS

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:

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.

After being ruled eligible to play for Texas Tech this upcoming season, Brendan Sorsby is forgoing his college career and applying to enter the NFL’s Supplemental Draft. We previously wrote about the Sorsby saga and his reinstatement. However, a week after a judge ruled that Sorsby would be eligible to continue playing football for Texas Tech, the Big 12 filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas[1] seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to punish Sorsby for sports betting.

On June 8, 2026, District Court of Lubbock County Judge Ken Curry ruled in favor of Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby after the NCAA initially ruled him ineligible to play collegiate football. In granting the temporary injunction, Judge Curry held that Sorsby, who notably entered a gambling rehabilitation facility following the NCAA’s ruling, “has demonstrated he will suffer a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury,” allowing him to continue his college football career after admitting to betting, including on his games.[1]

Editor’s Note: This post was updated on June 9, 2026, to reflect the NCAA’s updated guidance issued on June 5, 2026, in response to recommendations from stakeholders in men’s ice hockey, men’s basketball, and the U.S. national service academies.

During its May meeting, the Division I Cabinet proposed and discussed an age-based eligibility model (i.e., the 5-in-5 proposal) that would give student-athletes five years of eligibility, beginning either the academic year after turning 19 or upon graduation from high school, whichever happens first.

Last week, the NCAA launched a forensic investigation into the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) football program following public complaints alleging potential tampering involving linebacker Luke Ferrelli. Ferrelli, the ACC Defensive Rookie of the Year as a member of the University of California, Berkeley during the 2025 season, entered the transfer portal this offseason, signed a revenue-sharing contract with Clemson, then later reentered the portal and ultimately transferred to Ole Miss.

The name, image, and likeness (NIL) era has transformed more than compensation. It has reframed eligibility as an economic right — and that shift is driving a new wave of litigation against the NCAA.

Recent cases involving quarterbacks Diego Pavia, Trinidad Chambliss, and Joey Aguilar illustrate both the growing pressure on NCAA eligibility rules and the doctrinal fault lines that determine who obtains emergency relief — and who does not.

The NCAA’s five-year eligibility rule continues to face sustained antitrust scrutiny. The most recent challenge has been raised in the Southern District of Iowa by Cuban-born Division I wrestler Reineri Andreu Ortega in the case Ortega v. NCAA, No. 25-CV-00496. As with similar challenges, Ortega challenges the NCAA’s practice of starting an athlete’s eligibility clock before the athlete ever enrolls at an NCAA institution, arguing that the rule unlawfully restrains athlete labor markets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.