NCAA Five-Year Eligibility Litigation

Serving Clients Nationwide

College athletes dedicate years to developing their athletic and academic careers. When eligibility rules arbitrarily prevent athletes from competing, completing their education, and pursuing economic opportunities, the consequences can be significant.

Cuneo Gilbert Flannery & LaDuca, LLP (CGFL) represents Division I college athletes in a nationwide class action challenging the NCAA's updated Five-Year Eligibility Rule. The lawsuit alleges that implementation of the updated eligibility rules unlawfully deny thousands of athletes a fifth season of competition while providing additional eligibility opportunities to other athletes.

Earlier this summer, the NCAA adopted an updated five-year eligibility rule allowing college athletes to compete for five seasons. The lawsuit alleges that the NCAA declined to extend those same opportunities to athletes who had completed four seasons of eligibility before the rule update, depriving them of an additional year to compete, pursue undergraduate and graduate education, and earn newly won rights to Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) compensation.

About the Litigation

The NCAA Antitrust Litigation was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado as a proposed nationwide class action. 

The lawsuit alleges the NCAA's updated Five-Year Eligibility Rule arbitrarily distinguishes between athletes based solely on when they completed four years of eligibility while extending additional eligibility opportunities to other athletes under the revised rule.

The complaint asserts claims under the Sherman Act and for breach of contract and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and other class-wide remedies.

Why This Case Matters

College athletics has changed dramatically in recent years. College athletes now have expanded opportunities to earn NIL compensation while pursuing their education and competing at the highest level.

For many college athletes, an additional season of eligibility can provide meaningful benefits, including:

• Completing undergraduate or graduate degrees
• Maintaining athletic scholarships 
• Earning additional NIL compensation 
• Improving opportunities to compete professionally 
• Continuing athletic and personal development

The lawsuit alleges the NCAA's implementation of its updated eligibility rules unfairly deny these opportunities to one group of athletes while extending them to others under the same eligibility framework. According to the complaint, athletes who completed four seasons before the rule change are excluded solely because of when they exhausted their eligibility—not because of any meaningful difference between them and athletes who now receive a fifth season.

Through this litigation, the plaintiffs seek to ensure that affected college athletes have the same opportunity to pursue their educational, athletic, and economic goals as those who benefit from the NCAA's updated rules.

Contact Us

If you would like to speak with an attorney or to learn more about the litigation, contact the attorneys leading this case, Rob Shelquist or Christian Hudson.