This year has seen multiple challenges to student-athlete eligibility in collegiate athletics. One eligibility rule that has been recently challenged is the NCAA’s rule providing that student-athletes have four seasons of eligibility within a five-year period, including time played at non-NCAA member schools (i.e., junior colleges).
Student-athletes recently challenged the NCAA’s eligibility rule through litigation, arguing that such limits violate antitrust laws. These challenges varied from opposing the five-year calendar rule outright to asserting that time at junior colleges should not count against NCAA eligibility. Others have sought an additional year of eligibility while they pursue post-graduate degrees.
On Nov. 25, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Elad v. NCAA addressed the most recent case of a student-athlete’s challenge to the rule — which provides that an athlete’s time playing for a junior or community college counts towards the athlete’s overall eligibility. Jett Elad plays football at a Division I school but previously played at several other schools, including a junior college. After the NCAA declined to waive the rule’s application to Elad, he filed suit against the NCAA in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Elad’s lawsuit is premised on allegations that the rule violates antitrust laws, which turns on whether the restriction at issue amounts to a “commercial” restriction. When the answer to this inquiry is “yes,” a court must engage in a robust market analysis to determine the effect the commercial restriction has on trade by precisely defining the relevant market affected by the commercial restriction at issue.
In Elad, the district court found that the rule constituted a “commercial restriction” and thus was subject to antitrust scrutiny. As a result, the district court issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the NCAA from enforcing the rule against Elad during the pendency of the litigation. The NCAA subsequently appealed to the Third Circuit.
While the Third Circuit ultimately agreed that the rule amounts to a commercial restriction, it found that the district court erred in conducting its market analysis because the district court did not render findings of fact to define the market. Instead, the district court utilized the market definition set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston without evaluating economic data. The Third Circuit determined that the college football market has shifted since NCAA v. Alston, such that reliance on that definition did not account for the current realities of the market. Accordingly, the Third Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the district court to fine-tune the definition of the market specific to Elad’s labor, which will require the district court to examine economic data supporting Elad’s labor-market definition.
McGuireWoods continues to monitor challenges regarding student-athlete eligibility, including challenges to the five-year rule, the redshirt rule and transfer eligibility rules. For questions on the evolving landscape of collegiate sports, including issues related to athlete eligibility, revenue sharing, NIL, student-athlete benefits, or scholarships contact the authors of this article or a member of the Higher Education Enforcement & Regulatory Counseling Practice Group or the Sports Industry Team.