NCAA, Sports Leagues Brace for More Antitrust Action in Court

The NCAA and major sports leagues are girding for new legal fights over athlete pay, college eligibility, and rules of competition—a jumble of cases whose outcome could reshape the business of sports.

Driving litigation into 2026 are student-athletes who want to prolong lucrative college sports careers; the growing opportunities for name, image, and likeness payments; and disputes over whether league rules are anticompetitive.

“I’d be surprised if the wave is over,” said Rakesh Kilaru, a partner with Wilkinson Stekloff LLP, who represents the NCAA in several cases. “I’m not seeing any reason to think that things would be necessarily different” in 2026.

The already packed antitrust dockets include NCAA athlete eligibility challenges, appeals to the organization’s $2.8 billion antitrust settlement with student-athletes that gained court approval in June 2025, and a suit against the ATP Tour Inc. and other tennis governing bodies.

Pro League Rules

Pro sports leagues could face claims similar to those brought against NASCAR by Michael Jordan’s racing team, characterizing agreed-upon rules as anticompetitive, said Meegan Hollywood, a partner with Shinder Cantor Lerner.

That NASCAR suit settled after a nine-day trial that allowed Jordan’s team and Front Row Motorsports Inc. to race with chartered-team status for the 2026 season.

“What are the rules? What are the restrictions? How do they impact participation in the competitions?” Hollywood said. “You’ll have a lot of smart lawyers out there really looking at the rules, looking at how that operates, and thinking about it in the antitrust context.”

NASCAR isn’t alone: The Supreme Court will soon act on a petition to reconsider its 1922 decision that famously exempted Major League Baseball from US antitrust laws.

Other plaintiffs are appealing trial-court losses, including youth-hockey players who say major junior leagues are anticompetitive, and a now-defunct soccer league challenging MLS and US Soccer with claims they blocked competition.

And the NFL is fighting plaintiffs who appealed to the Ninth Circuit a ruling that tossed a $4.7 billion verdict in a fight over the pricing of a game-broadcast package.

‘Perfect Storm’ for NCAA

Expect to see additional suits against the NCAA following approval of its $2.8 billion deal that paved the way for colleges to share revenue with student-athletes for the first time, antitrust attorneys say.

The deal allows colleges to annually share up to 22% of the average revenue among schools in the Power conferences, including the ACC and the Big Ten, from such sources as media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships.

“You’ve got potential money on the table for student-athletes; you’ve got plaintiffs’ lawyers that will take the cases,” Michael S. Lowe, a partner with Troutman Pepper Locke, said about the appetite for litigation against the NCAA. “And you’ve got unsettled law. It’s the perfect storm for plaintiffs’ litigation.”

The organization has already been hit by dozens of suits that challenge its rules for how long an athlete can compete—typically five years to play four seasons in a chosen sport.

“You’re going to see a lot of student-athletes filing suit for that extra year or two of eligibility,” Lowe said. “Why wouldn’t you at least take a shot to try and get another year where you can get money to compete at that level?”

The NCAA has had mixed results fending off the eligibility claims, which many athletes allege unfairly prevent them from playing and earning NIL money.

In a statement, the NCAA said “as additional lawsuits challenging common-sense, academically-tied eligibility rules are filed, the NCAA will continue to defend against attempts to rob high school students across the nation of the opportunity to compete in college and experience the life-changing opportunities only college sports can create.”

Other challengers could argue the big NCAA settlement illegally capped athlete compensation, said Mit Winter, an attorney with Kennyhertz Perry who focuses on sports.

The NCAA settlement allows schools to share revenue with players up to a cap of $20.5 million annually, and eventually grow from there. Some antitrust scholars say there shouldn’t be a cap at all.

“Just because a lawsuit was settled, and there’s a settlement agreement among the parties, doesn’t mean the rules that came out of that settlement don’t violate antitrust law,” Winter said. “The court wasn’t passing judgment on that.”

Money at Stake

The incentive to sue is driven by the huge revenue generated by college sports and professional leagues. Sponsorships, ticket revenue, gambling-related money, and competition among streaming services to show games are all boosting momentum.

As long as there are millions of dollars at stake, “you’re probably always going to see litigation and disputes,” said Jeffrey Kessler, a partner with Winston & Strawn LLP who has represented numerous plaintiffs in sports cases, including Michael Jordan’s racing team and student-athletes in the NCAA settlement.

He noted that in 2026, baseball players’ collective bargaining agreement with the MLB is going to expire, which could lead to a salary cap.

“Could that possibly lead to lawsuits and arbitration? Yes,” Kessler said.

Media rights could also be a battleground for sports antitrust plaintiffs, said Shinder Cantor Lerner’s Hollywood.

“Media rights sort of go hand-in-hand with the valuation of the team itself,” she said. “There could be a claim about the devaluation of the team because they weren’t able to negotiate their own media rights.”