Courts Struggle to Keep Pace With NCAA Eligibility Battles Amid Rising Athlete Earnings

An examination of recent legal challenges shows judges often reaching different conclusions on similar eligibility disputes, according to data analyzed by Bloomberg Law. Over the past two years, federal and state courts denied nearly half of more than 80 requests from athletes seeking injunctions against NCAA eligibility restrictions, according to Bloomberg.

The conflicting decisions have created uncertainty for athletes whose careers — and earning potential — may depend on whether they are allowed to compete another season.

The issue has become increasingly significant since the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling opened the door for athletes to profit from name, image, and likeness deals. According to a statement, the financial opportunities available to top college athletes now reach into the millions of dollars, while schools have also begun directly compensating players.

One of the most prominent recent cases involved Vanderbilt University quarterback Diego Pavia, who received permission from a federal judge to play a sixth year of college football, including a fourth season at the Division I level. According to a person familiar with the matter, Pavia earned more than $2 million in NIL compensation last season and finished as runner-up for the Heisman Trophy.

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

However, rulings have not been consistent, even within the same courtroom. US District Judge William L. Campbell Jr., who ruled in favor of Pavia, later denied former Vanderbilt linebacker Langston Patterson an opportunity to compete in what would have been his fifth college season.

Related: NCAA Agrees to End Prize Money Restrictions in Settlement with Tennis Players

According to Bloomberg Law’s analysis, more than 40 eligibility-related lawsuits have been filed in federal court since Pavia’s case. Judges granted injunctions in seven of those cases, allowing athletes to continue playing, per statement. Four of those injunctions were later overturned or vacated by appellate courts, while two additional cases remain pending before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

State courts have also become a battleground for eligibility disputes. According to a statement from the NCAA, 35 eligibility cases had been filed in state courts as of last month, resulting in nine injunctions being 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.”

The NCAA is now attempting to address the growing confusion with proposed reforms aimed at streamlining eligibility standards. Last month, the organization introduced a proposal that would provide athletes with up to five years of eligibility, beginning either when they turn 19 or graduate from high school, according to a statement from people familiar with the discussions.

The proposed framework would replace many of the NCAA’s current exceptions and waiver processes. The NCAA’s Division I cabinet is expected to review the proposal during a scheduled meeting Friday, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Still, legal experts say the changes may not eliminate future court challenges.

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

Stein also noted that any revised eligibility structure would likely apply only moving forward, rather than retroactively benefiting athletes who have already exhausted their playing time.

“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.”

Source: Bloomberg