NCAA Age-Based Eligibility Rule Faces Antitrust Challenge

On June 23, 2026, the NCAA Division I Council adopted a new eligibility model that replaces the long standing “Four-in-Five Rule.” Two days later, student athletes filed a class action lawsuit in federal court challenging the rule as an unlawful restraint of trade under federal antitrust law. The lawsuit, Campbell v. NCAA , is one of many lawsuits filed that challenges specific features of the new rule and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages on behalf of affected athletes. How the New NCAA Eligibility Rule Works Under the previous rule, Division I athletes generally had four seasons of competition within a five-year period beginning with their first full-time college enrollment. Beginning with future athletes, the NCAA will instead allow five seasons of competition within a five-year window. However, the eligibility clock begins at the earlier of: An athlete’s first full-time college enrollment; or The academic year after the athlete turns 19. The change fundamentally shifts how eligibility is calculated for many athletes. What the New Rule Eliminates The new model removes several long-standing eligibility provisions. The rule eliminates redshirts in all forms. It also eliminates nearly all eligibility waivers, with only three narrow exceptions: pregnancy, active-duty military service, and official religious missions. Athletes using one of these exceptions may not participate in organized competition during that period. Injuries, transfers, junior college advancement, and other personal hardships are no longer grounds for eligibility extensions. There are no sport-specific exceptions or grace periods. Why the NCAA Changed the Rule According to the NCAA President Charlie Baker, the new model is intended to simplify eligibility determinations and reduce disputes that have become more common in recent years. The NCAA also stated that the rule is designated to provide greater consistency during an era marked by increased transfer activity and litigation. Transition Rules for Current Student Athletes The NCAA adopted several transition provisions. Athletes Who Exhausted Eligibility Athletes who completed their fourth season during 2025-2026 will not receive an additional year of eligibility. Current Student Athletes Athletes who still have eligibility remaining after the 2025-2026 academic year, along with incoming freshmen in Fall 2026, may use whichever rule is more favorable. Future Student Athletes Athletes enrolling in Fall 2027 or later will be subject only to the new age-based rule. Waiver Deadline Requests under the former waiver process must be submitted by July 31, 2026. After that date, waivers will generally no longer be available outside the three limited exceptions. Why the NCAA Is Being Sued On June 25, 2026, student athletes filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois challenging the new eligibility rule under the federal Sherman Antitrust Act. The plaintiffs argue that NCAA eligibility rules now directly affect athletes’ ability to earn compensation through name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities and revenue-sharing programs. As a result, they contend the rules should be analyzed as restrictions on a competitive labor market rather than simply eligibility standards. Their argument builds on several recent developments, including: NCAA v. Alston , 594 U.S. 69 (2021), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the NCAA is not exempt from federal antitrust law. The 2025 House v. NCAA settlement, which authorized Division I schools to share up to $20.5 million in annual revenue directly with athletes. According to the complaint, eligibility now determines access to compensation opportunities, making restrictions on eligibility economically significant. The Plaintiffs’ Antitrust Claims Unreasonable Restraint of Trade The lawsuit alleges that NCAA member institutions collectively agreed to impose an arbitrary age-based restriction that unlawfully limits athletes’ ability to compete and earn compensation. Specifically, the plaintiffs challenge the rigid age-based five-year window, the three arbitrarily selected waiver exceptions, the elimination of all other waivers, and the disparate retroactive application of the rule to athletes who exhausted eligibility under the former Four-in-Five Rule. Plaintiffs argue the rule is more restrictive than necessary to accomplish any legitimate competitive objective. Monopolization The complaint also alleges that the NCAA and its member schools possess monopoly power over the market for Division I student athlete services and have used that power to depress wages, foreclosure competition in the labor marker for Division I athletes, and restrict athletes’ access to NIL and revenue-sharing compensation. Why This Case Matters The litigation could have significant implications for the future of college athletics. According to the complaint, athletes who lose eligibility may lose access to revenue-sharing opportunities that can total millions of dollars per institution, along with growing NIL opportunities expected to continue expanding. If the court strikes down the rule, the NCAA may once again be required to revise its eligibility. What Colleges, Athletes, and Businesses Should Watch The NCAA’s new age-based eligibility rule represents another major shift in the rapidly evolving landscape of college athletics. As the legal challenge in Campbell v. NCAA moves forward, colleges, student athletes, collectives, and businesses involved in the NIL marketplace should continue to monitor its potential impact on eligibility, compensation, and compliance.