AVERY FRIEDMAN—2025 has been frantic for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). In mid-February, three lawsuits arose against the Association within six days of one another: Arbolida v. NCAA, Osuna Sanchez v. NCAA, and Goldstein v. NCAA. Each case alleges that the NCAA’s five-year cap on eligibility for college sports violates federal antitrust law. More specifically, that the eligibility requirements restrict athletes who previously played at the Junior College (JUCO) level by limiting their earning capacity through name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals.
NIL ended the bar on profiting from college athletic success, allowing athletes to engage in brand deals, partnerships, and sponsored social media posts. NIL has changed the game for collegiate athletics; no longer are the days when signing onto a college team meant the end of economic prosperity. In fact, some students now earn on par with their professional counterparts. But while the sky may be the limit, popular student-athletes have a higher earning capacity than those participating in smaller, lesser-known programs.
Thus, once an athlete reaches the top collegiate level, namely SEC and Big Ten schools, they maximize their potential earnings. This motivation has been the catalyst for conflict amongst the NCAA and Division I athletes who have transferred from the JUCO level. NCAA bylaw 12.8.1.1 mandates that athletes are eligible to compete for five years from the time of “registration at a collegiate institution.” Therefore, a student who attends a JUCO for two years before transferring to a Division I school can only play for three years at this new level, whereas a freshman starting at the Division I level has five years to earn NIL. Arbolida, Osuna Sanchez, and Goldstein claimed these eligibility requirements unfairly disadvantage former JUCO athletes by not allowing them equal earning opportunity due to less allotted play time in a comparable NIL marketplace.
However, Arbolida, Osuna Sanchez, and Goldstein are not the first players to challenge this rule. Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia filed a lawsuit arguing that “junior college seasons should not count against NCAA eligibility.” The fifth-year student claimed he would likely make more than $1 million in the 2025-2026 season if granted a waiver for one of his JUCO years, allowing him to play a fourth Division I season. Pavia has been granted preliminary relief, allowing him to play in the upcoming season, his sixth year competing, pending the result of ongoing litigation. This means Pavia will play next season unless the court decides in favor of the NCAA. The reason for his success? Antitrust law.
The Sherman Antitrust Act criminalizes “monopolistic business practices.” This law fosters fair opportunities for competition amongst market participants by outlawing the existence of monopolies or business deals limiting engagement in trade. Antitrust law has historically been associated with market giants, like Microsoft or Coca-Cola. However, the antitrust conversation has been revived in peripheral contexts with the creation of Generative AI and amidst concerns of other “nontraditional industry leaders”, like elite-level gymnastics.
Pavia took nonconventionality one step further, alleging that the NCAA’s eligibility rules posed an antitrust threat against student-athletes. The NCAA argued that the traditional “noncommercial” nature of college sports prevents its applicability to antitrust law. However, the district court agreed with Pavia, who argued that NIL created a labor market, making college sports essentially commercial. As a result, the court waived the NCAA’s five-year eligibility cap for Pavia, allowing him to play next season pending the outcome of the case. Pavia’s waiver has inspired other lawsuits requesting the same, and though the fight isn’t over, these athletes hope to take full advantage of NIL opportunities. Not all plaintiffs have been so lucky, however. University of Tennessee first baseman Alberto Osuna Sanchez was denied similar preliminary relief granted to Pavia. Osuna Sanchez’s fate is now left entirely to the resolution of his case.
As college sports fans, athletes, and coaches await the resolution of these claims, everyday critics fear for the potential impacts of eligibility waivers. If these athletes persevere in their antitrust claims, the NCAA may be forced to change their rules. If these changes come to fruition, the collegiate athletic landscape may be altered permanently. Some see it as a win for JUCO athletes, allowing them the opportunity to increase their skill at the JUCO level without it counting against the “NCAA clock,” and to obtain an associate’s degree, allowing them to pursue advanced degrees while at a four-year university. But others warn of the impacts on high school seniors looking to be recruited, now competing against athletes two years older. This may also increase the popularity of the “six-year path” to graduation, making college sports teams generally older.
But NIL, the last big NCAA “shake-up,” wasn’t–and still isn’t–free from similar criticisms. People claim NIL has gone too far, taking the organic competition out of collegiate sports. But others applaud NIL’s solution to athlete exploitation, paying what many believe has been earned. Regardless of one’s opinion, NIL has undoubtedly changed collegiate athletics. As we wait for the court’s decision on plaintiffs’ athletic fates in Pavia, Abovido, Osuna Sanchez, and Goldstein, we also await the potential impacts on the recruiting process, athletic program success, and academics.
