College Sports Regulation Body Attempts to Prevent 24-Year-Old Athlete Transfer from Rutgers University from Participating
In a significant development for college sports, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favour of athlete Jett Elad, challenging the NCAA’s five-year eligibility rule. This ruling could potentially expand eligibility periods for college athletes, allowing them more time to compete in college sports and thus more time to capitalize on Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) opportunities.
The NCAA's five-year rule generally restricts student-athletes to four seasons of competition within five calendar years, with the aim of maintaining competitive balance and eligibility fairness. However, in the Elad case, the lawsuit claims that the NCAA applied its new waiver—allowing an extra year of eligibility for athletes previously competing at non-NCAA institutions—in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner.
If the Third Circuit's ruling is upheld, it could weaken the NCAA's control over rigid eligibility timelines, increase players’ bargaining power in the NIL market, and encourage further legal challenges to NCAA bylaws that impact athlete compensation and rights.
Jett Elad, a finalist for the 2024 Jon Cornish Trophy and honorable mention for the All-Mountain West Team, has previously attended Ohio University, Garden City Community College (JUCO), and UNLV. Elad could have declared for the 2025 NFL Draft but relied on the NCAA issuing a JUCO waiver policy.
The NCAA is arguing against the U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a preliminary injunction that allows Elad to play for Rutgers this fall. The NCAA argues that Elad's exclusion from playing college football doesn't show the rule causes economic harm from a market standpoint. They also contend that college football players should not be viewed as selling services to teams.
U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi blocked the NCAA from disqualifying Elad from playing this fall, finding Greg Schiano's testimony about Elad’s NFL potential persuasive. Quraishi criticized the five-year rule for unreasonably restraining the labor market for college football players.
The NCAA notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently sided with the NCAA in a case brought by Wisconsin cornerback Nyzier Fourqurean to play a fifth season of college football in five years. However, this ruling invites a potential "circuit split," meaning federal courts of appeals holding conflicting views about the same legal question. Such circuit splits provide a compelling reason for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
This development comes amid broader legal and regulatory shifts, including the recent $2.8 billion House v. NCAA settlement, which includes changes to NCAA rules affecting eligibility and NIL enforcement. The settlement and court decisions are collectively reshaping the collegiate sports landscape by allowing greater athlete autonomy and compensation rights.
Overall, the Elad ruling and similar cases signal courts’ willingness to reconsider NCAA eligibility rules as potentially anticompetitive, which, combined with the evolving NIL regulatory environment, may materially enhance athletes’ ability to monetize their name, image, and likeness over longer collegiate careers. This underscores an ongoing transition toward greater athlete empowerment in college sports.
Read also:
- Court petitions to reverse established decision on same-sex marriage legalization
- Proposed Standardization of Food Labeling Laws Among Member States by the Commission
- Commemoration of 200 Days of American Resurgence Unveiled
- Minister Bärbel Bas expresses doubts about her tenure as a minister following a recent interview during the summer.
