Clarifying Antitrust Requirements for NIL-Era Eligibility Challenges

In a decision issued on November 25, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction that had allowed Rutgers University football player Jett Elad to participate in the 2025-2026 season despite an eligibility restriction imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Elad previously competed one season at Ohio University, one season at Garden City Community College, and two seasons at the University of Nevada. Under the NCAA’s “Five-Year Rule,” any season played at a junior college counts toward an athlete’s maximum of four permissible seasons of competition within a five-year period. Although Elad participated in only three seasons at the Division I level, his participation at the junior college (JUCO) level rendered him ineligible according to the NCAA.

Last December, a Tennessee district court in Tennessee granted Vanderbilt University quarterback Diego Pavia’s request for a preliminary injunction, ruling in Pavia v. National Collegiate Athletic Association that he had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits in establishing that application of the Five-Year Rule to JUCO athletes violated federal antitrust law. On October 1, 2025, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the NCAA’s appeal of that ruling, noting that the NCAA’s subsequent grant of Pavia’s waiver application to participate in the 2025-26 college football season deprived the court of jurisdiction on mootness grounds.

Following the 2024 season, Elad entered the national transfer portal, ultimately committing to Rutgers in January 2025. In doing so, Elad secured an approximately $500,000 name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreement with a New Jersey advertising company. When the NCAA denied Elad’s waiver request to participate in the 2025 season, Elad filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging, like Pavia, that application of the Five-Year Rule unlawfully restrained trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by limiting his ability to compete and participate in the evolving economic marketplace surrounding Division I football.

On April 25, 2025, the New Jersey district court granted Elad’s request for a preliminary injunction, enabling Elad to participate in all 12 of Rutgers’ games during the 2025 football season. On appeal, however, the Third Circuit held the injunction could not stand because the district court failed to define the relevant market adequately as required for a “Rule-of-Reason” antitrust analysis. Specifically, the Third Circuit noted that the plaintiff’s expert offered a broad market definition encompassing all cities in which college football was played, provided no economic analysis, and relied primarily on case law predating the rapidly changing conditions ushered in by the Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston. In reaching its decision, the court further underscored that NIL compensation, the transfer portal, and university-facilitated commercial opportunities fundamentally have altered the economic landscape of college athletics, making reliance on older assumptions insufficient.

However, the Third Circuit also declined to treat the NCAA’s eligibility bylaws as categorically noncommercial, observing that rules that impact an athlete’s ability to compete and earn compensation may have commercial consequences that justify Section 1 of the Sherman Act scrutiny. Nevertheless, because the district court accepted Elad’s proposed market definition without independent factual findings or supporting data, the court concluded that Elad had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction was vacated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings, including a complete and evidence-supported market-definition inquiry.

For the public — including student athletes, parents and institutions — this ruling reinforces that, while courts are paying close attention to the economic realities of modern college sports, plaintiffs are still required to present data-supported analyses in seeking to challenge current eligibility rules. Recent decisions across the country, including Pavia, the class-wide settlement in House v. NCAA, and the market-definition guidance in Fourqurean v. NCAA, reflect increasing willingness by courts to scrutinize NCAA regulations under antitrust law. At the same time, the Third Circuit’s decision in Elad confirms that not every challenge necessarily will succeed, particularly those lacking an adequate factual foundation. The ruling signals that, when evaluating these challenges, courts will expect to be presented with careful economic analysis before granting immediate or emergent relief that disrupts NCAA governance.

As this and other eligibility issues continue to develop, Buchanan offers a comprehensive suite of services, providing guidance tailored to institutions, collectives, and businesses involved in the NIL space and other activities related to student athletes to ensure compliance and support at every stage.