Full Breakdown
NCAA Eligibility Rule Sparks Nationwide Lawsuits by Division I Athletes
7/15/2026, 12:49:44 PM
Core Event
On July 8 2024 a federal class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for Colorado challenging the NCAA’s newly adopted five-year eligibility model. Twelve Division I athletes who began competing in the 2022-23 academic year and completed four seasons by the end of 2025-26 allege the rule bars them from a fifth season, depriving them of roster spots, scholarships and name-image-likeness (NIL) income. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to allow participation in the 2026-27 season and damages for lost earnings.
Background & Context
The NCAA announced an age-based eligibility framework in late June 2024, effective August 1. The model sets a five-year competition window that begins when a student-athlete first enrolls full-time or at the start of the academic year after the athlete’s 19th birthday, whichever occurs first. It eliminates traditional redshirt limits, waivers and many eligibility extensions. Athletes who used their fourth season in 2025-26 are excluded from the new window, while those enrolling after the rule change gain the full five years.
A parallel state-level case in Ohio, decided on July 9 2024 by Judge Christopher Wagner, granted a preliminary injunction to 24 basketball players—including Xavier forward Filip Borovicanin and Cincinnati’s MJ Collins—allowing them to compete in 2026-27. That order applies only to the Ohio plaintiffs and does not bind the Colorado federal suit.
Key Figures & Groups
- Plaintiffs: Minnesota guard Cade Tyson, Northern Colorado forward Brock Wisne, USF guard Isaiah Jones, Boston College forward Aidan Shaw, and ten others spanning men’s and women’s basketball, baseball and track & field.
- Legal counsel: Cuneo Gilbert Flannery & LaDuca, LLP (partners Rob Shelquist, Darren Heitner, Ryan Downton).
- Defendant: The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).
- Opposing bodies: The ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC issued a joint statement opposing retroactive application of the rule.
Legal Claims & Data
The complaint invokes Section 1 of the Sherman Act, alleging the eligibility cutoff unreasonably restrains competition because every Division I school must treat the plaintiffs as ineligible, even if a coach wishes to recruit them. It also alleges breach of contract, asserting that the athletes are third-party beneficiaries of the NCAA’s constitution and bylaws, and claims a violation of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.
The plaintiffs contend that exclusion from a fifth season could forfeit scholarship funding, degree-completion opportunities and NIL contracts tied to active roster status. The Ohio injunction, while limited, demonstrates a “likelihood of success” on the contract claim.
Official Statements & Responses
- NCAA: Called the Ohio ruling “wrong” and announced it will “immediately seek all avenues for reversal, including a stay of the court’s order pending appeal.” The association also urged Congress to pass the Protect College Sports Act to restore “stability, uniformity and fair competition.”
- Power Conferences: In a joint communiqué they warned that retroactive eligibility “would have detrimental consequences for member institutions…for student-athletes…for college sports in general,” citing potential roster instability and loss of spots for incoming recruits.
- Plaintiff Attorneys: Shelquist emphasized that the athletes “are not asking for special treatment” but merely for inclusion in the same eligibility framework applied to others.
Criticism & Opposition
Conference leaders argue that extending eligibility to seniors who completed four seasons would force schools to reshuffle rosters already set for the 2026-27 academic year, potentially displacing incoming freshmen. They contend the NCAA’s rule is a legitimate effort to standardize eligibility timelines and that retroactive application would create “significant roster instability.”
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Scope of the New Model: Law-commentary sources state the five-year window applies to all Division I athletes, while a 247Sports report specifies it applies only to athletes enrolling full-time in fall 2027 or later.
- Number of Plaintiffs: Initial filings mention twelve athletes; later coverage lists eleven, reflecting a possible amendment to the class definition.
- Court Outcomes: The Ohio injunction provides temporary relief for a subset of players, but no definitive ruling on the federal antitrust claim exists yet.
Verbatim Quotes
- “These athletes aren't asking for special treatment. They're asking to not be singled out and excluded from the NCAA's eligibility framework.” — Rob Shelquist, Partner, Cuneo Gilbert Flannery & LaDuca
- “Engaging in such retroactive applicability would have detrimental consequences for member institutions in our conferences, for student-athletes, and for college sports in general,” — Joint statement, ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC
- “The effect of this ruling will be to take away valuable participation opportunities from student-athletes who are eligible to compete, in favor of those who have already received exactly the number of seasons of competition they expected,” — NCAA statement
- “These athletes played 4 seasons against 5th/6th-year competitors enabled by COVID waivers and medicals," Heitner posted to his X account Sunday.” — Darren Heitner, attorney (posted on X)
What’s Next
The Colorado case is scheduled for briefing before Judge Charlotte Sweeney, with the plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction before the start of the 2026-27 season. Parallel state lawsuits are pending in Georgia, Tennessee, California and North Carolina, potentially creating a coordinated legal front that could influence any eventual federal ruling.
