The NCAA’s 5-Year Eligibility Rule: Recent Updates

In this piece for Edgeworth Economics, author Harry Higginbottom discusses the growing conflict between student-athletes and the NCAA as legal challenges intensify around compensation and eligibility requirements. Athletes argue that existing NCAA rules limit their ability to participate freely in the market for name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities, prompting a wave of litigation that questions whether these restrictions unlawfully constrain competition.

The article situates these disputes in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston, which found that certain NCAA limits on education-related benefits violated the Sherman Act. Subsequent court decisions and settlements have accelerated a shift toward broader athlete compensation, including the ability to earn income from NIL rights, while leaving core eligibility rules largely intact.

Higginbottom then examines several recent cases challenging those eligibility rules, which generally allow five years to complete four seasons of competition after full-time enrollment. In each case, athletes contend that these limits suppress their participation in the labor market for collegiate sports and NIL deals, amounting to anticompetitive conduct. The article reviews the economic theories advanced in these disputes and provides updates on where each case currently stands in the litigation process.

CONTINUE READING…