The NCAA Division I Cabinet’s unanimous approval this week of new rules that provide athletes with five years of eligibility should help the NCAA defend against antitrust-based eligibility lawsuits.
The core reason: Allowing athletes more time to play and earn more NIL and revenue-share money, in a more straightforward and transparent process, is a more reasonable arrangement than the current system.
When competing schools want to obtain the services of elite athletes but are blocked by NCAA eligibility limits, as has been the case, that’s a potential antitrust problem. In a competitive market, those schools would be able to offer more money and other benefits to recruit the players. The rules have also not been bargained with a players’ association, like in pro sports, so there’s no labor exemption from antitrust scrutiny.
But when the NCAA and those schools can show the rules provide other benefits to competition, such as securing the unique character of college sports, a court is more likely to find those rules reasonable—and thus they’ll survive antitrust scrutiny.
The approval both changes and simplifies a system that generally provides for four seasons of play within a five-year period but features hardship waivers, redshirt rules and other features that have sometimes sparked confusion, led to arguably inconsistent applications and attracted litigation.
