Overview
In the post-NIL era, dozens of NCAA-eligibility disputes have arisen in both state and federal courts across the United States. In an effort to make eligibility determinations simpler and more streamlined, this summer the NCAA implemented a five-year eligibility rule, which permits a five-year continuous period for college athlete eligibility.[1] The new rule applies to college athletes who enrolled in college in 2023 or later and allows for a "single five-year eligibility period tied to age and college enrollment, replacing rules that counted seasons of competition."[2] One of two events, whichever occurs earlier, initiates the beginning of an athlete's five-year period: (1) when the athlete first begins full-time enrollment in college or (2) when the academic year following the athlete's 19th birthday begins, if their birthday is earlier than September 1.[3]
However, despite the NCAA's efforts to simplify the rules, the "five in five" rule has added new wrinkles to the eligibility dispute landscape. Two recent lawsuits illustrate this new frontier of eligibility fights: an attempt by former NFL players to return to playing college football at Louisiana State University and a lawsuit by a group of athletes who started college in 2022 challenging the new "five in five" rule because it does not include their class.
The NFL Players' Dispute
Two NFL players, Dae'Quan Wright and Zxavian Harris, have used the new NCAA rule in an attempt to return to play college football at LSU. Both players played for current LSU head coach Lane Kiffin when Kiffin was at the University of Mississippi, and both players went undrafted for the 2026 NFL season after entering the draft following their senior year season.[4] Wright was signed with the Cleveland Browns but did not play in any pre-season games and was waived by the team following the second pre-season game.[5] Harris was signed by the New Orleans Saints in the 2026 off-season but was later waived by the team before practicing with them or playing in a game.[6] Each of these players then sued the NCAA in Louisiana state court, hoping to return to college to play football and earn NIL compensation.
On August 19, 2026, the court issued a temporary restraining order that required the NCAA to permit the two players, among other plaintiffs, to return to college football, subject to meeting certain requirements like terminating any NFL contracts and repaying their professional earnings.[7] This ruling set off a firestorm in college athletics, and the NCAA, the NFL, and various major conferences responded vigorously in opposing the notion that NFL players could return to college. The following week, the NFL issued a memorandum to the league's teams "making clear that any player who departs the professional ranks to return to college football this season will be prohibited from signing with any NFL team for the remainder of the 2026 campaign."[8] The Southeastern Conference (SEC) sought legal authority to remove LSU from its conference after LSU's attempt to roster these NFL players.[9] Given this tension, Coach Kiffin and the university ultimately decided against adding Wright and Harris to the LSU roster, despite the court order permitting them to do so.[10]
In the wake of this court ruling and NFL memorandum, collegiate conferences have implemented new rules preventing schools within their conferences from accepting players who have previously had professional ties with the NFL. For instance, the Big Ten announced a rule in August "to prohibit football players who have signed a contract, were on a professional roster at any point or declared for the NFL draft as an underclassman without withdrawing, from maintaining eligibility for athletic competition at a conference institution."[11] The SEC announced a similar policy that month, preventing athletes who had declared for the draft and not withdrawn, signed with an NFL team, or been listed on an NFL roster from returning to play in the SEC.[12] The NFL memorandum and the new collegiate conference rules suggest concerns in both leagues regarding roster stability and maintaining boundaries between collegiate and professional sports.
"2022 Freshman" Class Action Litigation
In another recent development, a group of athletes who began college in 2022 filed a federal lawsuit in the District of Colorado challenging the five-year eligibility rule given its explicit exclusion of their class. This group alleged that "new eligibility rules have adversely impacted their ability to extend their college careers and the NIL benefits attached to that opportunity," since they were excluded from having a fifth year of eligibility.[13]
The District of Colorado granted an injunction to these plaintiffs on the basis that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the five-year eligibility rule violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the plaintiffs had shown they would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, and the balance of equities and public interest favored the plaintiffs.[14] The court therefore ordered the NCAA to allow an additional year of eligibility for athletes who completed four years of eligibility between the 2022–23 and 2025–26 school years.[15]
Last month, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit stayed the injunction pending the appeal, meaning that, for now, the plaintiff class is not granted an additional year of eligibility.[16] This litigation has led to a constantly changing status for the athletes who filed the suit: first, they were ineligible due to the five-year rule; then, they were eligible for a three-week period following the district court's injunction; and now, they are ineligible again, ultimately pending the result of the appeal. However, athletes who have obtained independent relief from a separate state court lawsuit raising the same claims remain eligible to continue playing on college rosters, despite the Tenth Circuit's decision.[17] The Tenth Circuit appeal is set to be heard on an expedited schedule.[18]
In this evolving legal landscape of college sports, Steptoe's Sports Integrity Team is monitoring eligibility disputes, governance and rules developments, and the positions of relevant entities. The team is able to offer strategic advice regarding eligibility compliance and risks as well as handle eligibility litigation.
[1] NCAA Division I and Division II Age-Based Eligibility Rules, https://www.ncaa.org/eligibility-center/division-i-and-division-ii-age-based-eligibility-rules/.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Catherine Mills, "NFL Issues Memo Warning Clubs: Any Player Returning to College Football for 2026 Season Is Barred from Signing with a Team," Political.org, https://political.org/2026/08/26/nfl-issues-memo-warning-clubs-any-player-returning-to-college-football-for-2026-season-is-barred-from-signing-with-a-team/.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] David Cobb, "SEC seeking legal authority to expel LSU in updated federal court filing," CBS Sports, https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/sec-legal-authority-expel-lsu-court/.
[10] Id.
[11] Phil Harrison, "Big Ten, SEC ban conference members from taking NFL players back," Yahoo Sports, https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/big-ten-sec-ban-conference-232712245.html.
[12] Max Olson, "Louisiana court rules for the players: Now what?" ESPN, https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/49815660/college-football-2026-louisiana-decision-five-years.
[13] Myron Medcalf, "Group of 11 athletes challenge new NCAA eligibility rules in suit," ESPN, https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/49350890/group-11-athletes-challenge-new-ncaa-eligibility-rules-suit.
[14] Wisne v. NCAA, No. 1:26-cv-03063-CNS-KAS, Dkt. 38 at 18, 50 (D. Colo).
[15] Doug Samuels, "Latest court ruling puts Class of 2022 athletes back in limbo," Football Scoop, https://www.footballscoop.com/2026/08/21/latest-court-ruling-puts-class-of-2022-athletes-back-in-limbo.
[16] Id.
[17] Andrew Kerth, "NCAA 5-for-5 Court Ruling Explained: What the Latest Appeal Means for Athletes," Legion Report, https://legionreport.com/ncaa-5-for-5-court-ruling/.
[18] Doug Samuels, "Latest court ruling puts Class of 2022 athletes back in limbo," Football Scoop, https://www.footballscoop.com/2026/08/21/latest-court-ruling-puts-class-of-2022-athletes-back-in-limbo.
