Explaining the Lawsuits against the NCAA
3 years ago this week, I began a new phase of my life when I started law school. For the last 3 years I have tried to learn about the law and how to be a lawyer. I have been working full-time and raising two daughters along with my wife, but in my (very limited) free time I have kept college basketball close to my heart. I would love to work in college sports law someday. I am even writing a paper on the legal issues surrounding the NCAA's past and present restrictions on paying players. So, now that everything important in college basketball seems to be happening in courtrooms across America I wanted to try to explain what is happening for irritated, confused, and overwhelmed fans.
What are the lawsuits about?
Great question, dear reader! Most of what is in the news lately are lawsuits from athletes who graduated high school in 2022, had 4 years of college sports eligibility, and that eligibility ended in the 2025-2026 season. The NCAA passed a new rule effective August 1 that athletes now can be eligible for up to 5 seasons of competition over 5 years. Athletes whose eligibility expired in 2025-2026 were not given an extra year, but anyone who has remaining eligibility now can be eligible for a 5th season. As best I can tell from the College Sports Litigation Tracker (a real website that I visit way more than you can imagine), there are currently 15 different lawsuits brought by athletes who are seeking an extra year of eligibility.
Why are there so many lawsuits?
Well, there are a lot of Division 1 athletes who finished their 4th season and who want to get a 5th season. 14 of the 15 lawsuits are only asking for the 5th season to be granted to the specific athletes who have filed the lawsuit. Most of these 14 have a dozen or more athletes who are filing the lawsuit together, so those 14 lawsuits may cover hundreds of specific athletes, but anything that happens in those lawsuits only applies to those specific athletes.
1 of the lawsuits was filed by several athletes on behalf of all Division 1 athletes who were in the high school class of 2022, used their 4 years of college eligibility, and areseeking a 5th year. That is called a "class action" because it is on behalf of a "class" of people, and anything that happens in that type of lawsuit applies to everyone who meets the definition of that class.
Everyone who wants a 5th year could just let the class action case (brought in Colorado, and named Wisne v. NCAA as Brock Wisne is the "lead" athlete filing suit) but there is risk in counting on a class action. While you could get the benefits, you don't have much voice in what happens in the lawsuit. Your specific circumstances won't be taken into account, if there's a very strong and unique reason why you should get a 5th year. You also only get the benefits that are asked for, and granted, in that case. The Wisne case, so far, does not allow athletes to enter the transfer portal and does not exempt them from NCAA roster limits or revenue sharing caps.
Additionally, lawsuits have to get filed in a state that makes sense given where the athlete lives and where the NCAA does business. Since the NCAA does business everywhere, lawsuits tend to be brought in a state where athletes live.
The NCAA is trying to get all of these similar lawsuits joined together, so this may all be simplified, but until then there are a lot of different judges in different states hearing similar arguments.
Why do courts/judges get to decide who can play?
That's a BIG question. It's not as simple as a judge deciding that the NCAA should let players have a 5th year. If you sue somebody, you have to convince the court that that other person did something that is against a law. So, these athletes can't just argue that it's not fair that they don't get a 5th year. They have to point to a specific law.
For cases in federal court, the argument being made by the athletes is that the NCAA is unfairly keeping them from making money in the "market" for D-1 athletes. This is an area called "antitrust" law, which largely makes it illegal for an organization to set rules that prevent someone from earning what the market is willing to pay them. Antitrust law is a federal law, so it applies to everyone in the US.
For cases in state court, the argument being made is different because it has to be based on a law of that state. Most of the 5-in-5 cases are arguing that the NCAA is violating some fair business practice law by excluding this specific graduating class from a 5th year of eligibility.
In my opinion, the federal law cases have a stronger argument because there are a lot of examples already of NCAA policies violating antitrust law. That is effectively how NIL became a thing to begin with, because the Supreme Court ruled that some of the NCAA's restrictions were against antitrust law.
What is illegal about the 5-in-5 rule?
In federal court, the key argument that has been persuasive in a lot of lawsuits against the NCAA is that (1) the NCAA controls the market for D-1 athletes, (2) the opportunity to earn NIL/revenue share is lost if these athletes are not allowed to play D-1, and (3) there are open roster spots and schools willing to pay these athletes. Some of the athletes in these lawsuits may not find a school with a roster spot and an opportunity to earn money, but the vast majority will. Many of these athletes do not have another market willing to pay them to play their sport besides Division 1 colleges, so it's pretty understandable that they want to get the chance to do that for a 5th year just like all of their recent teammates will.
When a rule artificially reduces what a group of people in a market (D-1 athletes in this case) will earn for their services, it is called anticompetitive because it reduces the competition for buyers (D-1 colleges/NIL spenders) to have to pay for the services. The argument the athletes are making is that (1) there are open roster spots and additional money willing to be spent, and (2) the NCAA's exclusion of the athletes reduces the total market for D-1 athletes.
The other issue is that the NCAA just decided themselves to adopt the 5-in-5 rule and to not include these athletes. This isn't like the NBA, NFL, or MLB where the league and the players' union negotiate things like this.
So, the NCAA has to show that this rule which keeps these players out of a market that is willing to pay them is legal. The NCAA's argument is largely that these athletes entered college counting on 4 years of eligibility and got it, and other D-1 athletes will be unexpectedly negatively impacted (by playing time and maybe money) by adding these players.
The NCAA has historically not done well in federal court arguing these sorts of things.
In state court, it's different. Athletes are mostly arguing that the NCAA did not have a reasonable basis to exclude them from the 5-in-5 rule. They point to the fact that athletes in college in 2020 and 2021 got an extra year due to COVID, and now everyone still in college gets 5 years, so the HS class of 2022 is the only group not getting a 5th year.
That isn't as strong of an argument, but a lot of state laws offer enough protection that it can work. However, I'd expect you'll see some of the state court cases fail. Some states give a lot more leeway to governing bodies like the NCAA.
When will college sports stop being about lawsuits?
Honestly? Probably not until the NCAA either removes all restrictions on colleges paying students to play sports OR the NCAA agrees to collective bargaining with athlete unions. Until then, the NCAA will have a lot of restrictions that unilaterally limit what athletes can earn. Imagine if your company was one of 350 similar companies, and each one of the companies had a limit on how much they could pay the employees in total even if your company was the most successful one. Imagine if the NCAA passed a rule that coaches could not make more than $500,000 in salary and any outside income had to be approved by a clearinghouse. What would happen if the NCAA capped the budgets for athletic facilities, or travel? All of these would be incredibly poorly received, and some folks would want to look into lawsuits.
The other factor is that college athletes don't have a voice in policies except through the court system. Student athletes do not have any direct influence on the D-1 Board of Directors or the Cabinet, the main governance bodies. Athletes do not tend to get interviewed about their thoughts on eligiblity policies, or asked about how NIL and the transfer portal have changed their experience, in the same way that coaches and athletic directors do. So, college athletes exert their influence through the court system for now.
What is going to happen with all this?
The NCAA seems to be bitterly determined to fight these cases, but I do not think the NCAA is likely to win the federal case in Colorado (the Wisne class-action suit) simply because the NCAA's actions pretty clearly violate federal antitrust law. The NCAA could appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court, but the last time the NCAA argued an antitrust case to the Supreme Court they lost 9-0 in 2021. The best hope for the NCAA to is that Congress passes some legislation that grants antitrust immunity, the way that Congress has for professional sports leagues. I do not think that is likely to happen either. I think the NCAA is going to lose this, and within 2-3 years there will either be a major reckoning due to further lawsuits or the NCAA will revamp their structure and policies to comply with federal law.