NCAA Weighs Five-Year Eligibility Rules as Player Suits Pile Up

As the NCAA moves to simplify its rules on who can play college sports, an examination of the legal battles over athletic eligibility shows courts struggling to referee a system that has quickly become big business.

In the past two years, federal and state courts denied nearly half of more than 80 requests from students seeking to enjoin the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility rules, according to data analyzed by Bloomberg Law.

In some instances, the same judges made differing rulings based on specific circumstances. And in others, the pace of justice didn’t coincide with the limited time in an athletic season.

For college athletes, the financial stakes have grown huge in the five years since the Supreme Court opened the door to paying college athletes. And the legal rulings can seem arbitrary.

In one high-profile case, a judge granted Vanderbilt University quarterback Diego Pavia the chance to play a sixth year in college football (his fourth in Division I), earning more than $2 million last season in name, image, and likeness payments, according to a person familiar with the matter. He finished the season as runner-up for the Heisman Trophy, given to the sport’s top player.

“This is definitely an economic decision, which is why litigation makes sense for them,” said Sabria McElroy, antitrust partner with Boies Schiller Flexner LLP.

But the same judge who handled Pavia’s case, US District Judge William L. Campbell Jr., in January denied Pavia’s former Vanderbilt teammate, linebacker Langston Patterson, a chance to play what would have been his fifth college season.

In the two years since Pavia’s legal win, more than 40 suits have been filed in federal court, where judges have granted seven injunctions allowing the athletes to play another season, according to Bloomberg Law’s analysis. Of those seven, four were overturned or vacated by an appeals court, while two are pending at the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

According to the NCAA, 35 eligibility cases have been filed in state court as of last month, with nine injunctions granted.

“It’s become a bit of a mess,” McElroy said. “Everyone sort of has their own case, and then every judge has a very different view. It just becomes sort of a hodgepodge of these kinds of potential outcomes.”

In addition to name, image, and likeness payments that allow top athletes to earn millions of dollars for a single season, colleges and universities last year began paying players directly.

NCAA Rules Decision

Last month, the NCAA proposed simplified new rules that would allow all athletes up to five years of eligibility—an increase from four years now—beginning the year they turn 19 or graduate high school, whichever comes first. The proposal would get rid of many current exemptions and exceptions.

The NCAA’s Division I cabinet is expected to discuss the proposal at its Friday meeting, according to a person familiar with the matter.

While such a rule could clear up confusion going forward, it might not end legal action.

“It’s just another eligibility rule that could be challenged by someone,” said Cal Stein, a litigation partner with Troutman Pepper Locke.

But a rule allowing a fifth year of eligibility may not apply to players like Patterson.

“I don’t think the NCAA would try to apply a new rule retroactively,” Stein said. “I think it would probably be on a go-forward basis, and if they did try to apply it retroactively, I think there would be legal challenges to that.”

‘Fact Specific’

The arguments for Pavia and Patterson had significant differences.

Pavia claimed his two years of junior college experience shouldn’t be counted toward four years of eligibility at the higher, Division I level.

Patterson and four other players claimed the four-year limit on Division I eligibility itself violates antitrust law. All five had played four seasons without taking a redshirt year, which allows players to save a year’s eligibility if they only played in a limited number of games. In the lawsuit seeking class action status, Patterson claims restrictions on his ability to fully capitalize on NIL opportunities.

Vanderbilt linebacker Langston Patterson (No. 10) tackles Alabama A&M running back on Sept. 2, 2023 in Nashville. Patterson played four years at Vanderbilt but lost a legal bid to get a fifth year of eligibility.

Photographer: Johnnie Izquierdo/Getty Images

If athletes like Patterson were able to play an additional season, “you might see other Heisman candidates; you might see other multimillion-dollar NIL deals that otherwise wouldn’t have been available to them,” said Chris Wilson, a partner in Baker Botts’ antitrust and competition practice group who represents Patterson.

Both Pavia and Patterson went unselected in April’s NFL draft, but signed free agent contracts, Pavia with the Baltimore Ravens and Patterson with the Dallas Cowboys.

Patterson’s proposed class action lawsuit continues. The Sixth Circuit tossed the NCAA’s appeal to Pavia’s injunction as moot because he was already granted a waiver that allowed him to play in the 2025 season. Pavia’s underlying suit challenging the NCAA’s junior college rules is expected to go to trial in early 2027.

Some athletes have used a loophole of sorts by obtaining a court injunction and playing during a short athletic window while the NCAA went through the appeals process. Players like former University of Nevada, Las Vegas football player Tatuo Martinson then argued the matter was moot.

“Once the season is over, it probably doesn’t matter to that particular athlete anymore whether he or she wins the case, because what they wanted, i.e. to play, has already been accomplished,” Stein said.

The NCAA argues the matters aren’t moot if an issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” That argument helped convince the Fourth Circuit to overturn an injunction granted to four West Virginia University football players.

“This issue does keep coming up,” said Rakesh Kilaru of Wilkinson Stekloff, an attorney for the NCAA. “From our perspective, it’s really, really important to get judicial rulings that confirm that we are the correct on the merits.”