Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D.N.J.: College football player wins injunction against NCAA eligibility rules, (Apr 28, 2025)

By Kenneth H. Ryesky, M.B.A., J.D.

Student-athlete sought court ruling to forestall negative NCAA sanctions if his recruitment to play for Rutgers is ultimately found to violate valid NCAA bylaws.

The federal district court judge in Trenton, New Jersey has required the NCAA to allow a college football player to play football for Rutgers University during the 2025-2026 season. The student-athlete had spent time in a junior college, and had played out his years of eligibility according to the NCAA's enforcement policies. The court found that the student-athlete demonstrated the requisite likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted. Further, the balance of the equities and public interest favored the grant of injunctive relief. In its ruling, the court acknowledged that there were unsettled legal issues at play, possibly requiring Supreme Court clarification, but noted that if the issue is finally resolved in favor of student-athletes similarly postured and against the NCAA's position, the NCAA would draw upon its demonstrated "inherent ability to adapt to an ever-changing environment in college athletics" (Elad v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 3:25-cv-01981-ZNQ-JTQ (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2025)).

Background. The National College Athletic Association (NCAA) is an organization that promotes college athletics in the United States and promulgates rules that pertain to college athletic competitions, including rules on eligibility for individual athletes to compete. Teams in the National Football League (NFL) recruit most of their players from colleges and universities designated by the NCAA as Division I schools; playing football at Division I schools is now the predominant path for entrée into a potentially lucrative NFL playing career. The NCAA had long insisted that college athletes not receive any compensation for their college athletic participation, but NCAA rules now permit student-athletes to receive compensation from others for the use of their names, images, and likenesses (NIL) following a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court decision [NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021)].

The NCAA's eligibility rules limit a student-athlete's competition to four seasons within a five-year period, the so-called "Five Year Rule" [NCAA Bylaw 12.8]. Notwithstanding notable scholar-athletes such as Yankees first baseman Lou Gehrig, Senator Bill Bradley, or Supreme Court Justice Byron "Whizzer" White, academic achievement is not the forte of many college athletes; many athletes playing at NCAA Division I schools spend time at two-year colleges before being recruited by the four-year Division I schools. Construing its Five Year Rule in conjunction with other provisions of its Bylaws, the NCAA counts time played on a team of a junior college towards the five-year time limitation, effectively imposing its so-called "JUCO Rule."

Jett Elad is a student-athlete who, having excelled in football while attending high school, was recruited by Division I school Ohio State University (OSU). After playing some seasons on the OSU football team, Elad enrolled in a junior college, where he played football for a season. Following the year at the junior college, Elad was recruited to play for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), where he played for two years. In December 2024, Elad was recruited by Rutgers University.

Under the NCAA's prior construction of its eligibility rules, Elad is ineligible to play for Rutgers (or any other Division I school) because he has exhausted his playing time under the Five Year Rule. Elad's recruitment came less than two weeks after a Tennessee federal district court made a ruling on the computation and start of the Five Year Rule's time period regarding another student-athlete [Pavia v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Civ. No. 24-01336, 2024 WL 5159888 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 18, 2024)]; such a ruling, if applied to Elad, would clear the way for Elad to play for Rutgers during the 2025-2026 season. Elad's successful performance on the Rutgers football team during the season would markedly bolster his posture for negotiating a lucrative contract to begin a professional career with the NFL.

But the Pavia ruling from Tennessee is at odds with many rulings by other courts, and the Elad seeks to avoid the Five Year Rule and other NCAA provisions from being applied against him if he plays for Rutgers during the 2025 season. Rutgers sought a waiver of the Five Year Rule as it pertains to Elad playing for it, but the NCAA rejected Rutgers's request. Elad has accordingly filed a lawsuit against the NCAA, analogous to the one filed in Tennessee by Pavia, alleging that the Five Year Rule violates the Sherman Act.

In his lawsuit, Elad seeks declaratory relief that (1) the Five-Year Rule's inclusion of time spent at Junior Colleges violates the Sherman Act; and (2) Elad is eligible to play football at Rutgers during the 2025-2026 season. Elad also seeks injunctive relief, including that the court enjoin prevent Rutgers from enforcing its so-called "Restitution Rule" [NCAA ByLaw 12.11.4.2], which empowers the NCAA to compel the expungement of Elad's achievements and record in the event that the unsettled questions regarding the computation and timing of the Five Year Rule are eventually resolved in a manner to Elad's disfavor.

Injunctive relief-success on the merits. The judge found that Elad has a good likelihood of success on the merits to warrant an injunction. The court ruled that the NCAA's eligibility rules are commercial in nature. It noted that a previous Third Circuit opinion had determined that the eligibility rules are not commercial in nature [Smith v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 139 F.3d 180, 185—186 (3d Cir. 1998)], but that ruling was made before the NCAA, in compliance with the Supreme Court's Alston ruling, permitted the student-athletes to receive NIL compensation, which is commercial in nature. Enforcement by the NCAA of its JUCO rule discriminates against student-athletes who have attended junior colleges by truncating their opportunity to compile a performance record that would posture them for a NFL career as compared with student-athletes who have done their entire college curriculum at Division I schools.

The NCAA failed to proffer any pro-competitive justifications for its JUCO Rule, and the court noted that the NCAA has other exceptions to the JUCO Rule, such as military service, religious obligations, and prep schools, that effectively exert similar effects upon the market as would pertain if the JUCO Rule were set aside.

Injunctive relief-irreparable harm. The judge found that Elad showed irreparable harm if the NCAA is not enjoined from enforcing its eligibility rules upon his playing for Rutgers. The lawsuit requesting injunctive relief was not unduly delayed; it was filed shortly after the negotiations by Elad and Rutgers with NCAA failed when the NCAA denied Rutgers's request for a waiver. Elad's missed opportunity to play for Rutgers during the upcoming season would severely deprecate his prospects for a favorable start of a career with the NFL.

Moreover, granting the injunction "is potentially Elad’s only opportunity to complete his Division I career and transition into the NFL [emphasis in original]." NFL's counsel took no position when asked by the judge at the hearing whether the NCAA "would permit Elad to play in a later season if he was denied an injunction now but later won on the merits of his suit after the 2025 season."

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-01981-ZNQ-JTQ.

Judge: Quraishi, Z.

Attorneys: Kevin Harry Marino (Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, P.C.) for Jett Elad. Kathleen M. Princivalle (Holland & Knight LLP) for National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Companies: National Collegiate Athletic Association

Cases: Antitrust NewJerseyNews