Trinidad Chambliss’ lawsuit in the Chancery Court of Lafayette County, Mississippi, asks the court to bar the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility denial and to require the association to apply its bylaws as written and as promised.
Student Athlete Eligibility
The Five-Year Rule Under Fire — Again: Ortega v. NCAA and the Latest Antitrust Challenge to Eligibility Limits
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.
Sixth Circuit Dismisses NCAA Appeal as Moot: Pavia’s College Athlete Eligibility Continue
Background: From the Trial Court to the Appeal
Diego Pavia’s journey to a NCAA Division I starting quarterback position was anything but conventional. After leading his junior college (JUCO) team to a national championship, Pavia transferred to first one, then a second, Division I school. By 2024, Pavia became a breakout star in the SEC, leading his school to a historic win and drawing attention from NFL scouts. He also began receiving lucrative offers tied to his name, image, and likeness, yet his eligibility was in doubt.
Martinson v. NCAA: NCAA’s Five-Year Eligibility Rule Is Commercial and Subject to the Sherman Act
Former University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) football player Tatuo Martinson is the latest NCAA athlete to successfully convince a federal district court to enjoin the NCAA from enforcing its “five-year eligibility rule” against a former junior college (JUCO) athlete. Martinson joins Diego Pavia,[1] Jett Elad,[2] Cortez Braham Jr.,[3] and four West Virginia University football players[4] as having prevailed on this issue, in contrast to James Coley Jr.,[5] Jagger Giles,[6] and Jackson Hasz,[7] who had similar efforts rebuffed by the NCAA.
Seventh Circuit Overturns Fourqurean Fifth-Year Preliminary Injunction
On July 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, overturned a preliminary injunction that would have granted University of Wisconsin cornerback Nyzier Fourqurean a fifth year of eligibility. The NCAA’s “Five-Year Rule” limits student-athletes to four seasons of competition within a five-year period. Fourqurean played four seasons: two at Grand Valley State University and two at the University of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin requested a waiver of the Five-Year Rule from the NCAA, citing circumstances that reduced Fourqurean’s playing time in his first season.
“NIL Go”: Deloitte Establishes Basic Framework to Review Third-Party NIL Deals
A three-page memo distributed to schools provides further clarity regarding Deloitte’s role as the approved clearinghouse for name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals, as outlined in the House settlement and guidance documents. Deloitte’s NIL clearinghouse and review platform will be known as “NIL Go.” We briefly addressed the role of the NIL clearinghouse in a previous blog post.
Elad v. NCAA – Former JUCO Player Demonstrates Likelihood of Success in Antitrust Suit Challenging NCAA’s JUCO Rule
On April 25, U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi ordered the NCAA not to enforce its Five-Year Rule against Rutgers University cornerback Jett Elad.[1] The impact of name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements on the new world of Division I sports underpinned two key findings in the opinion: (1) the NCAA’s junior college rule (JUCO Rule) is subject to federal antitrust laws; and, (2) Elad had a likelihood of success on the merits because Division I student-athletes have a greater ability to benefit from NIL agreements compared to non-Division I athletes.
Elad v. NCAA – Testing the Legality of the NCAA’s JUCO Waiver Limits
Rutgers University football player Jett Elad is one of the latest student-athletes to file a federal antitrust lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.[1] Elad’s lawsuit challenges what he calls the NCAA’s “arbitrary and unreasonable” application of its new waiver allowing student-athletes who attended and competed at a non-NCAA school (e.g., junior college (JUCO)) for one or more years to remain eligible to compete in 2025-26 academic year (JUCO Waiver).
NCAA Issues Clarifying Q&A Guidance to Eligibility Waiver
On March 13, the NCAA issued guidance in the form of a Q&A defining the scope of the eligibility waiver it previously approved on December 23, 2024, for student-athletes who have competed at non-NCAA institutions, such as junior colleges (JUCO) and National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) schools. The December 2024 waiver[1] extended an extra year of eligibility in the 2025-26 academic year to student-athletes who previously “competed at a non-NCAA school for one or more years,” and otherwise would have exhausted their NCAA eligibility following the 2024-25 season.
Texas NIL Update: Texas Gears Up for a Post-House Settlement World and Beyond
Texas’s biennial legislature is in session, and revamping Texas’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) laws to keep up with the developments across the U.S. seems to be a hot topic. As of the date of this post, state representatives have filed seven bills that would affect NIL in the state and potentially allow Texas high schoolers to benefit from their NIL.