Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, ECONOMIC NEWS—College Athletes file class action suit over new NCAA eligibility rule, (Aug 17, 2026)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

The student athletes’ complaint asserts that the new flat age-based five-year window of eligibility is anticompetitive and requests injunctive relief in Colorado.

Three college athletes have filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado challenging the NCAA’s new age-based eligibility rule, seeking damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs include a Division I men’s basketball player, a Division I women’s basketball player and a Division I men’s baseball player who argue that the new NCAA eligibility rule artificially curtails athletic competition, diminishes college athletes’ economic opportunities and restrains competition in violation of antitrust laws (Campbell v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 1:26-cv-03635-CYC (D. Colo. Aug. 10, 2026)).

Background. College and university athletes in the United States are promoted and regulated by the National College Athletic Association (NCAA). In 2026, the NCAA passed an “Age-Based Rule” that gives athletes five years of eligibility but unlike previous rules, this rule “starts the clock” on an athlete’s five years of eligibility when the athlete first enrolls or with the academic year following the athlete turning nineteen, whichever occurs first (the “Age-Based Rule”). There are three limited exceptions for the new Age-Based Rule: (a) pregnancy, (b) official religious mission or similar service commitment, and (c) active military duty. Critically, for athletes such as Plaintiffs, the Age-Based Rule does not apply to athletes whose fourth season of collegiate eligibility was completed by spring 2026.

Previously, NCAA athletes’ eligibility was governed by the “Five Year Rule” which, subject to some exceptions, which limited student athletes to playing four seasons of intercollegiate competition in any one sport within a five-year period (the “Five Year Rule”).

In a related case, Wisne et al. v. NCAA, also filed in the District of Colorado, twelve student-athletes filed a putative class action lawsuit against the NCAA on July 8, 2026 claiming that they each completed four years of collegiate sports since first enrolling in college, are below 24 years of age and that they were being deprived of a fifth year of Division I competition with the accompanying professional development opportunities and NIL payment receipts. The court granted a preliminary injunction on July 31, 2026, blocking enforcement of the Age-Based Rule against certain athletes who began competing in 2022—23 and completed four years of eligibility by the end of 2025—26. The NCAA appealed that order and the court denied the NCAA’s motion to stay.

The three named plaintiffs in the Campbell complaint, received athletic scholarships and NIL compensation during their careers. However, each of the three athletes had taken traditional hardship or medical/injury waivers during their eligibility under the previous Five Year Rule. Under the NCAA’s challenged transition rules, the three athletes would not be eligible for an additional season of competition during 2026—27.

Anticompetitive Allegations. The complaint alleges that the Age-Based Rule imposes unreasonable restrictions that arbitrarily cut short college athletes’ ability to compete and, correspondingly, to earn NIL, be compensated through revenue sharing, and have access to scholarships.

The student athletes assert that the Age-Based Rule limits athletic careers and unlawfully restrains the market for college athletes’ services. The compliant offers, for example, an athlete who turns 19 in July of 2027 but delays going to college for a year to care for an elderly parent, save money to pay for college, or recover from a serious illness or injury. Such athlete will be subject to the Age Based Rule and will have lost a year of his or her eligibility to play Division I sports and earn compensation before even entering college. The athletes argue that the Age-Based Rule is too rigid, with only three arbitrary exceptions. The Age-Based Rule eliminates certain redshirts and other waivers for circumstances which are largely outside an athlete’s control, such as an injury, family hardship, financial need, or academic progression from junior college.

Additionally, the athletes argue that the rules for the period of transition create disparate treatment. Under the Age-Based Rule, athletes who already finished four playing seasons by 2025—26 get nothing further, while similarly situated athletes with remaining age eligibility can choose the more favorable of the old or new rules. The plaintiffs argue there is no procompetitive justification for this disparity.

The complaint defines the relevant market as the nationwide labor market for the services of Division I college athletes in each applicable sport. The athletes assert that the NCAA has both monopsony power over the services of Division I college athletes and monopoly power over the performance and broadcasts of Division I college sports in the relevant markets.

The complaint also alleges anticompetitive effects. Implementation of the Age-Based Rule will reduce output, decrease wages, and decrease quality by decreasing the number of qualified, talented athletes. Moreover, without these restrictions, more athletes would receive scholarships, and many would be paid additional compensation by schools and conferences for their NIL rights and athletic services. Instead, the athletes allege that “NCAA, through its arbitrary eligibility restrictions, has suppressed what the market would otherwise pay these athletes, many of whom come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.”

The complaint also posits that the rules function as a horizontal agreement among the NCAA and competing member institutions that unreasonably restrains trade (§1) and helps maintain monopoly power (§2). These rules are adopted through the NCAA Division I Council and member institutions, effectively making the rules the practical equivalent of horizontal agreements among the NCAA and the member institutions who compete against one another for the labor of student-athletes. The complaint also cites to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Alston, which affirmed “the district court’s decision that the NCAA violated the Sherman Act with restraints on education related benefits that were patently and inexplicably stricter than was necessary to achieve the procompetitive benefits the league had demonstrated.”

Class. The complaint defines two classes, an injunctive class and a damages class. Specifically, the Campbell complaint includes a slight difference between the injunctive relief class and that in Wisne action in that the Wisne b(2) class includes only students that began to play collegiate sports in 2022-23 while the injunctive class definition in this case includes athletes that began their college playing careers before 2022-23 (but, like Wisne, finished their respective four years of playing eligibility under the old rules in 2025-26).

Relief. The complaint seeks actual and treble damages; a declaration that the challenged eligibility bylaws are void; a permanent injunction restraining enforcement of the Age-Based Rule and related restrictions (including directing the NCAA to open the transfer portal); attorneys’ fees and costs; and other just relief. The complaint seeks a jury trial.

The Case is No. 1:26-cv-03635-CYC.

Judge: Chung, C.

Attorneys: Andrew Yoder (Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP) for Dejuan Campbell.

Companies: National Collegiate Athletic Association

News: ClassActions EconomicNews EmployeeStatus ColoradoNews