The name, image, and likeness (NIL) era continues to reshape college athletics, as another federal court has ruled that the NCAA's eligibility rules are "commercial in nature" and therefore subject to scrutiny under the Sherman Act.
The NCAA Five-Year Rule and JUCO Athlete Eligibility
In Robinson et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia recently granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the NCAA's "Five-Year Rule" against four West Virginia University football players, deepening the divide among federal courts over whether NIL compensation transforms NCAA eligibility rules into commercial restraints that are subject to antitrust law.
The plaintiffs, who were all former junior-college (JUCO) athletes, were denied eligibility by the NCAA under NCAA Bylaw 12.8, also known as the Five-Year Rule, which allows student-athletes four seasons of competition within a five-year window. Under the bylaw, the five-year window starts on the date of first enrollment at any collegiate institution—including JUCOs. Thus, for these athletes, their five-year window started long before they ever played at any NCAA institution.
Federal Court's Ruling in the NIL Era
In their complaint before the court, the athletes argued the Five-Year Rule improperly counts JUCO participation against NCAA eligibility, and this violates antitrust law because it limits their ability to compete at an NCAA institution, earn NIL income, and access NFL pathways.
The court ruled that in the current NIL era, eligibility rules are now "commercial in nature" because they regulate access to the labor market for Division I athletes and directly affect NIL opportunities. Following similar decisions in the Pavia, Elad, and Braham cases, the court found the Five-Year Rule anticompetitive because it excluded JUCO athletes, distorted educational choices, and reduced team competitiveness. The court noted its decision was directly contrary to what other federal courts have held in similar cases, such as Hasz, Goldstein, and Coley, but was not persuaded by these "well-intentioned" opinions.
The court rejected the NCAA's asserted justifications for the Five-Year Rule, which included ensuring "the survival of amateur sports," expanding opportunities for incoming high school players, and aligning athletics with academics. The court found these justifications unconvincing in the current NIL era and inconsistent with the transfer portal and existing eligibility exceptions. As a result, the court found the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction because they are likely to succeed on the merits at trial and will be subject to irreparable harm from lost playing time and NIL opportunities.
Implications for Amateurism and NCAA Governance
The court's decision underscores several trends in the shifting landscape of college athletics. First, courts are increasingly treating NCAA eligibility rules as economic restraints, expanding the scope of antitrust scrutiny and deepening the split with those that continue to characterize such rules as "noncommercial."
Second, the meaning of commerce itself is being redefined, as eligibility now determines access to multi-billion-dollar NIL and revenue-sharing markets rather than serving merely as a condition of athletic participation.
Third, the doctrine of amateurism is eroding, with courts demanding concrete procompetitive evidence rather than accepting it as a blanket justification. Finally, the court's reasoning could extend beyond the Five-Year Rule to other rules, such as transfer rules, scholarship caps, or roster limits, creating significant uncertainty for NCAA governance moving forward.
Conclusion
Robinson highlights a pivotal shift in how some courts are analyzing eligibility rules. NCAA eligibility rules are no longer insulated by notions of amateurism but are being judged against modern market realities.
For more sports law analysis and insights, please contact the authors or visit the Venable Sports Law Group web page.