NCAA Grapples for Control Over Junior College Eligibility Rule

The NCAA’s power over athlete eligibility faces a major test this week as both the Sixth and Third circuits review antitrust cases whose outcome could have profound implications for the governance of college sports.

At the center of the disputes are Diego Pavia and Jett Elad, former junior college football players who now play at Vanderbilt and Rutgers. They claim the NCAA’s rules are unlawful because they count “juco” participation toward Division I eligibility, limiting their access to name, image, and likeness payments.

Rulings from both courts could potentially shift power away from the NCAA and toward players seeking to extend lucrative college sports careers beyond the current five-year limit, blurring the line between traditional students and professionals.

“Right now this is the most pressing legal issue facing the NCAA in terms of its college sports litigation,” said Michael Lowe, a litigation partner with Troutman Pepper Locke. “How it is resolved will help guide future courts in reaching decisions that involve the same issue.”

The NCAA is arguing that the eligibility rules promote competition and keep the line clear between college and pro sports. The NCAA declined to comment on the cases.

Sixth Circuit Judges Amul R. Thapar, Chad A. Readler, and Whitney D. Hermandorfer will preside over the Pavia arguments in Nashville on Tuesday. Third Circuit Judges Stephanos Bibas, Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves, and Thomas L. Ambro will preside over the Elad arguments in Philadelphia on Sept. 17.

Five-Year Rule

Both suits target an NCAA rule that gives athletes five years to participate in four seasons of collegiate competition, including any in two-year junior colleges.

Pavia’s case was the first to challenge the rules, arguing they unlawfully reduce the number of years that former juco football players can play Division I NCAA football after transferring.

That case spawned dozens of similar suits claiming the rule also affects athletes’ access to NIL compensation. Elad sued in March on similar grounds and, like Pavia, was granted an injunction allowing him to play in the 2025-26 season.

Both athletes argue the eligibility rule is commercial in nature because it not only decides who can play, but also who can earn money from NIL, especially in light of the NCAA’s $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that for the first time allows revenue-sharing between colleges and students.

This season, Pavia is the starting quarterback for Vanderbilt. Elad is a defensive back for Rutgers.

“If you are not eligible to play, no school is giving you revenue-sharing and no one is paying you for NIL,” said Ryan Downton, an attorney for Pavia and managing partner of Texas Trial Group. “It’s almost sleight of hand for the NCAA to say, ‘it’s an eligibility rule, it’s not commercial in nature,’ when the result of declaring someone ineligible is you can’t make money.”

The NCAA said it won’t revoke a waiver granted to Pavia for the 2025-26 academic year even if the Sixth Circuit reverses the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction. Elad, whose attorneys didn’t respond to a request for an interview, was denied a similar waiver.

Pavia still wants the NCAA to change its rules on behalf of other juco athletes, Downton said. “The way the rule is set up, it excludes an entire sizable class of people from participation.”

Mixed Rulings

The NCAA has seen mixed success in the eligibility suits, with some courts holding the rules are commercial in nature and others rejecting the notion of anticompetitive effects.

Circuit court rulings that favor the NCAA—especially if they deem the rules commercial in nature—could stave off future suits, said Mit Winter, an attorney with Kennyhertz Perry LLC with a focus on sports.

From the NCAA’s perspective,“you really have to keep fighting the eligibility cases,” Winter said. “They don’t want to have a situation where college athletes can just play forever.”

The appellate courts may side with the NCAA, determining that justifications for the rules outweigh any anticompetitive effect, said Robin S. Crauthers, an antitrust partner with McCarter & English LLP.

The rules are in place to “ensure that students are achieving the ultimate education goal without spending more time than necessary because of the ability to play sports and make money while they are at the institution,” she said.

NIL World

The ability to earn more money from NIL is a huge catalyst for the eligibility suits, said David Gringer, an antitrust partner with WilmerHale.

“Now people want to stay as long as possible, particularly if you are not going to go to be a professional in major sports,” he said.

But a line needs to be drawn somewhere, Gringer said.

“These are four-year degree institutions,” Gringer said. “There does have to be a logical endpoint to it.”

The NCAA is represented by Wilkinson Stekloff LLP. Pavia is also represented by Riley & Jacobson PLC. Elad is represented by Marino Tortorella & Boyle PC.

The cases are Pavia v. NCAA, 6th Cir., No. 24-06153, 9/16/25 and Elad v. NCAA, 3d Cir., No. 25-01870, 9/17/25.