Rutgers University football player Jett Elad is one of the latest student-athletes to file a federal antitrust lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.[1] Elad’s lawsuit challenges what he calls the NCAA’s “arbitrary and unreasonable” application of its new waiver allowing student-athletes who attended and competed at a non-NCAA school (e.g., junior college (JUCO)) for one or more years to remain eligible to compete in 2025-26 academic year (JUCO Waiver).

If Elad is successful, his one-year of JUCO competition will not count toward the NCAA’s four-year competition limit or its five-year eligibility rule (Eligibility Rules).

Background

In December 2024, the NCAA announced its approval of the JUCO Waiver.[2] The waiver provides a blanket waiver to the NCAA’s four-year competition limit to any student-athlete who (i) competed for a JUCO; (ii) would have been eligible to compete in 2025-206 season but for their time competing for a JUCO; and (iii) otherwise met all other NCAA eligibility requirements.

The JUCO Waiver came after Diego Pavia, a star NCAA Division I quarterback, won an injunction that required the NCAA to not count Pavia’s year of JUCO competition against him under the Eligibility Rule.[3] Pavia’s eligibility was set to expire at the end of the 2024-25 football season, but the injunction and JUCO Waiver will allow him to play an additional year of NCAA Division I football.

Elad believes his case is like Pavia’s and that he too should benefit from the JUCO Waiver. His collegiate career, outlined below, spans six football seasons, and he wants it to extend into a seventh.

  • 2019-20 – Ohio University (redshirt season)*
  • 2020-21 – Ohio University (COVID-19 waiver)*
  • 2021-22 – Ohio University (first season of NCAA competition)
  • 2022-23 – Garden City Community College (first season of JUCO competition)
  • 2023-24 – University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) (second season of NCAA competition)
  • 2024-25 – UNLV (third season of NCAA competition)
  • 2025-26 – Rutgers University (fourth season of NCAA competition, pending injunctive relief)

Elad believes the NCAA should not count one year of competition in JUCO toward his four years of intercollegiate competition or his five years of eligibility. But, unlike Pavia, Elad’s five-year eligibility clock started in Fall 2019 and, but for his redshirt year, his five years of eligibility would have ended after the 2023-24 football season. Because he took that redshirt year, Elad does not meet the JUCO Waiver’s second requirement: eligibility to compete in 2025-2026 season but for his time competing for a JUCO.

Elad’s Claims and the NCAA’s Response

On March 20, Elad filed his lawsuit to enjoin the NCAA from enforcing its Eligibility Rules against him. His complaint alleges antitrust violations, breach of contract, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. Elad argues that but for the NCAA’s interpretation and application of the Eligibility Rules to Elad, he would qualify for the JUCO Waiver.

Elad claims NCAA’s conduct toward him violates federal antitrust laws because it has “substantial anticompetitive effects on two-year or junior colleges and universities that that are excluded from NCAA membership.” See Elad Complaint at ¶53. He largely relies on the ruling in Pavia to support his antitrust claims.

The NCAA has taken a position like those it has taken in other antitrust cases, i.e., arguing that the Eligibility Rules are not “commercial” in nature and cannot be subject to federal antitrust laws. It also argues that Pavia (i) was decided in error and (ii) is not binding on the District of New Jersey. In support of its arguments, NCAA says that Smith v. NCAA[4] established “black-letter law in the Third Circuit that NCAA eligibility rules are not commercial in nature and therefore are not subject to antitrust scrutiny.”[5]

What’s Next?

Elad’s case is a test to the legality of the JUCO Waiver’s limitations. The outcome of Elad’s case could expand the JUCO Waiver to student-athletes who benefited from a traditional and/or medical redshirt year.

The hearing on Elad’s request for injunctive relief is set for April 16. If Elad is successful, he will be eligible to play for Rutgers in the upcoming 2025-26 season. We expect the court will issue its ruling on Elad’s request for injunctive relief by April 23.

If the court rules in Elad’s favor, it will be interesting to see how the NCAA responds. Will it amend the JUCO Waiver to allow student-athletes in Elad’s position to compete in 2025-26? Or will it appeal the court’s order and continue applying the JUCO Waiver’s limitations?

We’ll cover the court’s ruling and the NCAA’s response in a follow-up post here on the NIL Revolution Blog. Be sure to subscribe to stay up-to-date on developments in this case, and all things NIL.

[1] Elad v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 3:25-cv-01981 (D.N.J. filed Mar. 20, 2025) (Elad).

[2] We recently covered the JUCO Waiver and the NCAA’s clarifying guidance in a prior post on NIL Revolution.

[3] Pavia’s challenge to the NCAA was discussed in a prior episode of Highway to NIL.

[4] 139 F.3d 180, 185 (3d Cir. 1998).

[5] Elad, NCAA’s Resp. to Order to Show Cause at 7.