On April 25, U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi ordered the NCAA not to enforce its Five-Year Rule against Rutgers University cornerback Jett Elad.[1] The impact of name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements on the new world of Division I sports underpinned two key findings in the opinion: (1) the NCAA’s junior college rule (JUCO Rule) is subject to federal antitrust laws; and, (2) Elad had a likelihood of success on the merits because Division I student-athletes have a greater ability to benefit from NIL agreements compared to non-Division I athletes.
Elad won a seventh year of eligibility to play his fifth year of college football in the upcoming 2025-26 season. Although the court’s order enjoining the NCAA applies only to Elad, it is another blow to the NCAA’s attempt to enforce its four-in-five eligibility rule and may encourage other legal challenges to the NCAA’s junior college (JUCO) rule.[2]
In what proved to be a pivotal finding, Judge Quraishi departed from 25-year-old Third Circuit precedent and held that the JUCO Rule is subject to federal antitrust laws. In doing so, he noted that the Supreme Court in Alston v. NCAA drastically altered the market realities of college athletics when it opened the door for students to benefit from NIL deals. Considering the new NIL landscape, Judge Quraishi reasoned that the JUCO Rule is commercial in nature “because an NIL agreement is a commercial transaction and the JUCO Rule limits who is eligible to play and therefore negotiate an NIL agreement.” See Opinion at 13.
Judge Quraishi also held that Elad had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his antitrust claim. The court held that the JUCO Rule has anticompetitive effects because it gives Division I member schools recruiting advantages over JUCO institutions. Specifically, the court found Division I schools get to offer student-athletes four years of eligibility to compete at the highest collegiate level, which brings increased exposure, likelihood of a pro career, and opportunities to receive life-changing NIL deals. JUCO institutions, on the other hand, are at a competitive disadvantage because under the JUCO Rule, a student-athlete who competes in JUCO is limited to two or three years of Division I competition and its concomitant benefits. The court quoted from Pavia v. NCAA in support of its finding that the JUCO Rule restricts who can compete at the Division I level, thereby affecting the ability to earn NIL compensation and the duration of eligibility.
The Court did not find persuasive the NCAA’s offer of procompetitive justifications: (1) providing a differentiated product from professional sports; and, (2) preserving the student-athlete experience for younger athletes who are unable to compete for positions with older, more experienced JUCO players. Judge Quraishi held that both justifications were inconsistent with the NCAA’s other eligibility rule exceptions (those allowing students to join after prep schools, military service, and religious obligations), and the practical effects of the transfer portal, which allows schools to fill positions that may otherwise be taken by younger student-athletes.
Judge Quraishi also found that Elad faced significant, non-quantifiable harm, including loss of NIL income, a missed opportunity to play at the Division I level, and diminished chances of entering the NFL. Finally, he ruled that the public interest favored competition and fairness in athlete treatment.
Elad is now eligible to play for Rutgers in the 2025-26 season. Although the injunction applies only to Elad, his preliminary success challenging the JUCO Rule may encourage others to do the same. It may also force the NCAA to consider a potential waiver of the JUCO Rule as it did in late 2024 after star NCAA quarterback Diego Pavia won the right to continue his playing career.[3]
Subscribe to the NIL Revolution Blog to stay updated on NIL developments.
[1] For a detailed review of Elad’s case, see our prior NIL Revolution blog post.
[2] In December 2024, the NCAA announced its approval of the JUCO Waiver. 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.
[3] Pavia’s challenge to the NCCA was discussed in a prior episode of Highway to NIL. And we covered the subsequent JUCO Waiver and the NCAA’s clarifying guidance in a prior post on NIL Revolution.