Division I Athletes Sue NCAA Over Exclusion From New Five-Year Eligibility Rule

Twelve Division I athletes have filed a federal class action lawsuit challenging an NCAA eligibility rule that excludes them from a fifth season of college sports while extending that opportunity to other athletes.

The lawsuit, filed July 8 in federal court in Colorado, claims the NCAA unlawfully restricted the athletes’ access to roster positions, scholarships and name, image and likeness income. Minnesota basketball player Cade Tyson and Northern Colorado basketball player Brock Wisne are among those bringing the case.

The athletes began competing in Division I sports during the 2022 to 2023 academic year and completed four seasons over the next four years. Under the NCAA’s previous system, athletes generally had five years to compete in four seasons, allowing one year for a redshirt or another period without competition.

The NCAA adopted a new age-based model in late June that gives qualifying athletes five years of eligibility. Eligibility generally begins when an athlete first enrolls in college full time or at the start of the academic year following the athlete’s 19th birthday, whichever comes first. The change removes season limits, most redshirt rules, and several forms of eligibility waivers.

Athletes who still had eligibility remaining after the 2025 to 2026 academic year may use either the former rules or the new model, depending on which gives them more time to compete. Athletes who used their fourth and final season during that academic year do not receive another season.

The lawsuit argues that the NCAA created an arbitrary distinction between those groups. Tyson, Wisne and the other athletes claim they would fall within the five-year period but for having competed during each of their first four seasons instead of taking a redshirt year.

Their proposed class would include Division I athletes across the United States who began playing during the 2022 to 2023 season, completed four seasons by the end of 2025 to 2026, and are barred from returning under the new rule. A judge has not yet decided whether the case may proceed on behalf of that wider group.

The athletes compete in men’s and women’s basketball, baseball, and track and field. They claim the loss of another season would also cost them access to athletic scholarships, degree programs and NIL agreements tied to their continued participation.

NIL rules allow college athletes to earn money through endorsements, appearances and other deals involving their names, images and likenesses. Eligibility can therefore affect both an athlete’s ability to compete and income tied to remaining on a college roster.

The lawsuit’s main legal claim arises under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, a federal antitrust law that prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrict trade. NCAA rules are created and followed collectively by colleges that would otherwise compete to recruit athletes.

The athletes argue that the disputed cutoff restrains competition because every Division I school must treat them as ineligible. No member school may independently offer them a place on a team, even if a coach wants to recruit them and the athlete remains within the new five-year period.

An eligibility limit is not automatically unlawful under antitrust law. Courts may consider whether a rule harms competition, whether the NCAA has a legitimate reason for the restriction, and whether the same purpose could be served in a less restrictive way. The Supreme Court has also held that NCAA compensation rules are subject to ordinary antitrust review rather than broad protection simply because they govern college sports.

The complaint also relies on breach of contract. The athletes claim they are third-party beneficiaries of agreements between the NCAA and its member schools, including the association’s constitution and bylaws.

A third-party beneficiary may have the right to enforce an agreement made by others when the contract was intended to benefit that person. The athletes argue that the NCAA’s agreements with its member schools promise fair and consistent treatment and that the new cutoff violated those commitments.

They also accuse the NCAA of violating the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. That rule generally prevents a party from using its authority under a contract in a way that unfairly defeats the agreement’s purpose. The association has not yet filed its response to those claims in the Colorado case.

The group is seeking a court order allowing the affected athletes to compete during the 2026 to 2027 season. Their requested relief would also prevent the NCAA from applying certain transfer and roster restrictions that could limit their ability to join new teams. The complaint seeks damages for alleged financial losses as well.

A similar dispute has already produced a ruling in Ohio. On July 9, a state judge granted a preliminary injunction to 24 men’s and women’s basketball players who also completed four seasons in four years. The judge found that they had shown a likelihood of succeeding on their contract claim that the NCAA acted arbitrarily by excluding them from fifth-season eligibility.

The Ohio order temporarily allows those athletes to continue pursuing another season while their case moves forward. It applies only to the athletes covered by that ruling and does not control the federal lawsuit in Colorado.

The Colorado athletes are seeking relief before the 2026 to 2027 season begins. The NCAA has not yet filed a response to their claims.