The NCAA’s 5-Year Eligibility Rule: Recent Updates

ABA Antitrust Law Section, Trade, Sports & Professional Associations Committee

12.11.2025

Tensions between athletes and the NCAA have escalated in the wake of recent litigation regarding athlete compensation and eligibility rules. Student-athletes are bringing lawsuits against the NCAA, claiming that eligibility rules impede their ability to compete in the marketplace for name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) funding. This article summarizes litigation surrounding eligibility rules and the payment of athletes and illustrates the economic arguments used in each.

In the 2021 case NCAA v. Alston, the Supreme Court ruled that Sherman Act Violations prevented student athletes from receiving education-related benefits.¹ Since then, rulings and settlements have paved the way for a new era of student-athlete compensation.² Athletes can now be compensated for their NIL’s, however they are still subject to the NCAA eligibility rules.³ These rules give college athletes five years to graduate and four seasons to compete following their full-time enrollment.⁴ Three recent cases have challenged these rules. In these cases, student-athletes allege they were harmed by NCAA eligibility rules which restrict their ability to participate in the labor market for sports and compete for NIL funding, constituting an antitrust violation. All three cases are at different stages of litigation. Below are some recent case updates.

Martinson v. NCAA – Latest Update: September 18th, 2025: Full Opinion and Injunction ⁵

• Tatuo Martinson brought a lawsuit against the NCAA in the District Court of Nevada alleging that he could not compete for NIL funding as a result of eligibility rules. This lawsuit cited Sherman and Clayton Act violations.
• Judge Richard F. Boulware II ruled that the NCAA’s eligibility rules are subject to antitrust scrutiny because athletes can be paid, making the restrictions commercial in nature. Historically they have been ruled as non-commercial. 6
• He defined two relevant markets for college sports, the labor input (players) and the product market (college sporting events).
• The judge determined that via eligibility rule setting, the NCAA has monopsony power in determining both input and output markets.
• By losing a spot on the team, it was determined Martinson would suffer harm in terms of lost career opportunities.
• This decision is currently being appealed.

Manu v. NCAA – Latest Update: November 24th, 2025: NCAA Respond to Restraining Order Motion ⁷

• Jacob Manu brought a lawsuit against the NCAA in the Washington State District Court, claiming that eligibility rules reduce players’ opportunity to maximize compensation, violating state and federal antitrust laws.
• Manu claims that the rules "unreasonably limit the ability of NCAA Division I college athletes to compete and, in turn, restrict their opportunity to compete in the marketplace for name, image, and likeness compensation."
• Sherman Act violations are alleged, claiming there are few, if any, procompetitive benefits of the eligibility rules. He filed for a temporary restraining order October 22nd, 2025.
• The NCAA recently filed a response opposing the motion November 24th, 2025.

Boyd v. NCAA – Latest Update: November 17^th, 2025: Dismissal Bid Filed ⁸

• Derrin Boyd, a basketball player, filed an amended complaint on October 28^th, 2025, seeking for another year of eligibility at Vanderbilt. Judge Campbell found that Boyd did not demonstrate market-wide anticompetitive harm, denying a preliminary injunction.
• The NCAA then filed a dismissal bid to Boyd’s complaint on November 17^th, 2025, arguing that eligibility rules are not commercial in nature, and even if they were, he fails to articulate the anticompetitive effects of the NCAA’s five-year eligibility rule.
• The dismissal bid’s main argument is that although eligibility rules prevent him from participating in the labor market, he does not articulate that the rules themselves restrain compensation for athletic services in the market.
• The NCAA writes that Boyd cannot maintain a claim that antitrust restraint in one market affects competition in another.

Despite the precedent of eligibility requirements being viewed as non-Commercial, there have been numerous legal challenges alleging anticompetitive effects and Sherman Act violations. U.S courts are divided over the judgement of the anticompetitive effects of the NCAA’s five-year eligibility rule. The cases hinge on two factors: (i) defining the relevant markets for athletes’ labor and the product created (college sporting events); and (ii) the alleged anticompetitive nature of the NCAA’s eligibility rules. For example, if there is a claim that the eligibility rules inhibit competition for NIL funding, plaintiffs must illustrate that the rules (i) restrict their ability to participate in the relevant labor market; and (ii) inhibit competition for NIL funding. In cases like these, economists can help define the relevant markets and assist courts to determine whether eligibility requirements affect competition for NIL funding. These updates were accurate as of November 24, 2025.

This piece was originally published in the ABA Antitrust Law Section, Trade, Sports & Professional Associations Committee on December 11, 2025.

CITATIONS

1. Law360, “High Court Says NCAA Can’t Limit Athlete Education Pay”, available at https://www.law360.com/articles/1373231/high-court-says-ncaa-can-t-limit-athlete-educationpay; Supreme Court of the United States, National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston et al., available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf; Law360, “Judge Rules NCAA Rules Are Commercial, Grants Injunction,” September 19, 2025, available at https://www.law360.com/articles/2390373

2. NCSL, “What the NCAA Settlement Means for Colleges and State Legislatures,” June 9, 2025, available at ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/what-the-ncaa-settlement-means-forcolleges-and-state-legislatures; See also, ESPN, “Judge OK’s $2.8B settlement, paving way for colleges to pay athletes,” June 6, 2025, available at https://www.espn.com/collegesports/story/_/id/45467505/judge-grants-final-approval-house-v-ncaa-settlement.

3. New York Times, “College Athletes Can Now Be Paid. But Not All of Them are Seeing Money. Is That Fair?” February 6, 2023, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/06/learning/college-athletes-can-now-be-paid-but-not-all-ofthem-are-seeing-money-is-that-fair.html.

4. There are also additional requirements like GPA and credit-hour restrictions. See NCAA, “Stay ing on Track to Graduate,” available at https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/10/studentathletes-current-staying-track-graduate.aspx. There have also been exceptions to these requirements at certain times, such as the redshirt rule (permitting athletes to practice but sit out of competitions, typically used for injury) and exemptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. See, USA Today, “What is a redshirt?”, available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2025/11/12/what-is-redshirt-college-footballeligibility-rules-years/87234264007/.

5. NIL Revolution, “Martinson v. NCAA: NCAA’s Five-Year Eligibility Rule Is Commercial and Subject to the Sherman Act,” September 24, 2025, available at https://www.nilrevolution.com/2025/09/martinson-v-ncaa-ncaas-five-year-eligibility-rule-iscommercial-and-subject-to-the-sherman-act/; See also, The College Sports Litigation Tracker, “Mart inson v. NCAA,” available at https://www.collegesportslitigationtracker.com/tracker.

6. United States Court of Appeals, Claude. L. Basset v. The National Collegiate Athletic Association and University of Kentucky Athletic Association Opinion, available at https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0209p-06.pdf.

7. Law360, “Wash. Linebacker Seeks to Void NCAA Eligibility Limits,” October 10, 2025, available at https://www.law360.com/sports-and-betting/articles/2398674/wash-linebacker-seeks-to-voidncaa-eligibility-limits; See also, The College Sports Litigation Tracker, “Manu v. NCAA,” available at https://www.collegesportslitigationtracker.com/tracker.

8. Law360, “NCAA Seeks Toss of Tenn. Basketball Player’s Antitrust Suit,” October 7, 2025, available at https://www.law360.com/sports-and-betting/articles/2396865/ncaa-seeks-toss-oftenn-basketball-player-s-antitrust-suit; See also, The College Sports Litigation Tracker, “Boyd v. NCAA,” available at https://www.collegesportslitigationtracker.com/tracker.