Key Takeaways
- Due to rapidly increasing name, image and likeness (NIL) opportunities after Alston and revenue-sharing opportunities resulting from the House settlement, former junior college athletes and non-redshirt student-athletes continue to bring suits against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to push the limits on rules restricting the length of time they are eligible to play. The student-athletes claim that the NCAA rules limit both their playing and economic opportunities.
- In the latest case, Patterson v. NCAA, a class of current and former student-athletes seek injunctive relief and damages for the NCAA’s enforcement of its “Redshirt Rule.”
- The student-athletes allege that the NCAA’s “five years to play four seasons” rule (the “Four Seasons Rule”) arbitrarily limits the time that athletes have to compete in college.
- The student-athletes also allege that the Redshirt Rule is inconsistently applied and advantages athletes who are eligible to take redshirt status while unnecessarily restricting those ready to compete at the Division I level as freshmen.
- Since Alston in 2021, courts have consistently held that the Four Seasons Rule is “commercial” and therefore subject to the Sherman Act.
The NCAA’s settlement of the House v. NCAA[1] litigation has led to more legal challenges to the governing body’s historical rules. On Sept. 2, 2025, a new class of student-athletes, headed by lead plaintiff and Vanderbilt linebacker Langston Patterson, filed a lawsuit against the NCAA alleging that its Four Seasons Rule and inconsistently applied Redshirt Rule violate the Sherman Act. Similar to House and other NCAA challenges, the complaint alleges that NCAA rules unfairly restrict competition for college athletes.[2]
For decades, the NCAA has enforced the Four Seasons Rule, which provides Division I college athletes with a five-year window to exhaust their competition eligibility. Within this five-year “eligibility clock,” the NCAA limits college athletes to competingin only four seasons of intercollegiate competition. In other words, student-athletes have traditionally been afforded up to five years of eligibility to complete four seasons of competition.
The fifth year of eligibility has traditionally been used for “redshirt” seasons, when a qualifying student-athlete may preserve a year of eligibility by participating only in team activities without participating in any competitions. Redshirt seasons are not uncommon for freshman student-athletes during their first year on campus. The Redshirt Rule provides flexibility for athletes recovering from injury, adjusting academically or developing athletically.
In recent years, the NCAA has made several exceptions to its historical rules, which the student-athletes in Patterson highlight in their complaint. In 2018, the NCAA created a football exception to the Redshirt Rule, which allows only football players to participate in up to four regular-season games without losing a season of eligibility. Then, in the immediate wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the NCAA voluntarily waived the Four Seasons Rule for college athletes who entered Division I programs between 2017 and 2020. The waiver extended the eligibility clock and allowed all college athletes to compete for five seasons. Then, in 2023, the NCAA voluntarily removed its rule requiring student-athletes to sit out for one season after transferring to another school. The Patterson plaintiffs argue that each of these exceptions prove that the NCAA no longer has a need for the Four Seasons Rule or the Redshirt Rule.
The complaint alleges that the NCAA has arbitrarily capped the number of seasons that student-athletes are allowed to compete, which unfairly denies some student-athletes full use of their five years of eligibility. Most notably, the student-athletes allege that the NCAA’s restrictions are anti-competitive because they limit a student-athlete’s ability to maximize their athletic and earning potential in college – especially during the back end of their collegiate careers. The complaint argues that a college athlete’s final season usually coincides with their peak athletic development and highest earning potential.
Recent Legal Challenges to the Eligibility and Redshirt Rules
Patterson follows an unsuccessful suit filed by Zakai Zeigler, who played four consecutive seasons of Division I basketball at Tennessee and sought a fifth year of eligibility while he attended graduate school.[3] On June 12, 2025, the Zeigler court denied Zeigler’s request for a preliminary injunction. But the court also explained that the pending approval and implementation of the House settlement, which would provide for direct compensation from NCAA schools, was not considered when deciding on the injunction. The Patterson plaintiffs now argue that House has significantly changed the economic opportunities available for student-athletes.
Several other student-athletes have filed lawsuits against the NCAA with challenges to its eligibility rules. In December 2024, Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia was granted an injunction that precluded the NCAA from counting his seasons spent in junior college toward his five-year eligibility period in Division I college football.[4] The NCAA then granted a universal waiver that extended an extra year of eligibility to athletes who previously “competed at a non-NCAA school for one or more years” and otherwise would have exhausted their NCAA eligibility after the 2024-25 season.[5]
West Virginia football players Justin Harrington and Tye Edwards, Rutger’s defensive back Jett Elad, and others have also won injunctions that enjoin the NCAA from enforcing its five-year eligibility rule for their time spent in junior college.[6] Before Rutgers, Elad played one season in junior college in the middle of two multiyear stints at NCAA schools. Edwards played three seasons in junior college and is currently enrolled at his third NCAA school. Similarly, Harrington’s injunction has allowed him to participate in his eighth season of college football.
These continued legal challenges, along with Patterson, signal a trend toward reform for the NCAA eligibility landscape in light of recent changes to NIL rights and the implementation of revenue-sharing. Courts continue to find that the market for college athletics is commercial in nature, and NCAA rules restricting student-athletes from maximizing their eligibility are subject to the Sherman Act.
The NCAA has historically argued that its rules help facilitate student graduation and align academics with athletics. The NCAA has also argued that its rules protect the amateur model for college sports and ensure that seniors graduating from high school get ample opportunities to play at the next level. In light of the Alston court’s ruling that eligibility is commercial in nature, these historical arguments are becoming increasingly less effective. Now that players may receive money for third-party NIL deals and from their schools directly, current and former student-athletes will continue to challenge the NCAA.
For more information on the information discussed in this article, contact Janine Anthony Bowen (jbowen@bakerlaw.com) or Lee Solomon (rlsolomon@bakerlaw.com). To stay up to date on the future of the NCAA and all matters related to NIL rights and the sports industry in general, follow the BakerHostetler Sports Industry LinkedIn page or contact Sports Industry Leaders Ron Gaither (rgaither@bakerlaw.com) and Elizabeth McCurrach (emccurrach@bakerlaw.com).
[1] https://www.bakerlaw.com/insights/house-v-ncaa-settlement-sparks-new-age-of-student-athlete-compensation/
[2] https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/ncaa-faces-new-class-action-over-sport-eligibility-caps-redshirt-rule-2025-09-03/
[3] https://www.on3.com/teams/tennessee-volunteers/news/tennessee-vols-basketball-zakai-zeigler-lawsuit-fifth-season-withdrawn-appeal/
[4] https://www.law360.com/articles/2275975
[5] http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/eligibility_center/IEW/Directive.pdf
[6] https://www.si.com/college/westvirginia/football/the-ncaa-appeals-judge-s-ruling-here-s-what-it-means-for-the-four-wvu-players
