The recent ruling in Jett Elad v. NCAA, decided on April 25, 2025, by U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi in the District of New Jersey, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battles over NCAA eligibility rules. This case, centered on the NCAA’s “Five-Year Rule” and its application to junior college (JUCO) time, has significant implications for college athletes, particularly in the era of NIL compensation.
Significance of the Case
Jett Elad, a football player who transferred to Rutgers University, challenged the NCAA’s “Five-Year Rule,” which limits athletes to four seasons of competition within five years, counting JUCO time against this limit (the “JUCO Rule”). Elad argued that this restriction violates Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by unreasonably restraining trade in the labor market for college athletes. The court granted a preliminary injunction, allowing Elad to play in the 2025-26 season, a decision that underscores the evolving commercial nature of NCAA eligibility rules in the NIL landscape (I put the word “commercial” in bold because the NCAA has recently fought hard to convince judges that these rules are not commercial in nature). This ruling not only secures Elad’s immediate future but also signals a broader shift, potentially weakening the NCAA’s traditional control over athlete eligibility and reinforcing antitrust scrutiny in collegiate sports.
Key Language from Judge Quraishi’s Ruling
Judge Quraishi’s opinion provides critical insights into the court’s reasoning, tying eligibility rules to commercial impacts and antitrust law. Here are some standout excerpts:
-
Commercial Nature of the JUCO Rule:
“Based on the preliminary record now before the Court… the undersigned finds that the JUCO Rule is commercial in nature because a NIL agreement is a commercial transaction and the JUCO Rule limits who is eligible to play and therefore to negotiate a NIL agreement.”
This ties eligibility directly to economic opportunities, making it subject to Sherman Act scrutiny—a significant departure from pre-NIL precedent like Smith v. NCAA (3d Cir. 1998).
-
Economic Impact on Athletes:
“Elad’s NIL agreement is a real-life example of a wider phenomenon… older, more experienced players generally receive more NIL compensation than younger, less experienced players at the same position. Selectively limiting JUCO students from that pool necessarily has a commercial effect.”
The court recognizes that restricting eligibility affects athletes’ earning potential, amplifying the rule’s market impact.
-
Anticompetitive Effects:
“The JUCO Rule limits the NCAA Division I eligibility of student-athletes who attended junior college to two or three seasons while student-athletes who attend only NCAA Division I institutions have four years of Division I eligibility… [T]his gives a recruiting advantage to NCAA Division I member schools over junior colleges… [and] distorts the labor market by reducing competition, depressing the prices at which Division I schools can acquire athletes, and the pay athletes can earn in NIL agreements.”
This analysis highlights the rule’s broader market distortion, a key factor in finding an antitrust violation.
-
Irreparable Harm:
“A loss of his NIL agreement if he is unable to play this season can be quantified, but his lost opportunity to play a year of Division I football for a Big Ten team is incalculable in terms of personal experience… The personal and financial value of making that dream [of playing in the NFL] real is beyond this Court’s capacity to measure.”
This emphasizes the unique, non-monetary harms at stake, justifying injunctive relief.
These passages reflect a judiciary increasingly attuned to the economic realities of modern college sports, setting a precedent that could ripple through future cases.
Comparison to Pavia, Fourqurean, Goldstein, and Osuna
The Elad ruling aligns with and diverges from other recent NCAA eligibility cases, reflecting a fragmented judicial landscape:
-
Pavia v. NCAA (M.D. Tenn. 2024):
Like Elad, Pavia granted a preliminary injunction against the JUCO Rule, finding it commercial and anticompetitive under the Sherman Act. Both courts emphasized NIL’s transformative effect, with Pavia noting that restrictions on eligibility “necessarily have anticompetitive effects” in the NIL era. Elad builds on Pavia’s reasoning, reinforcing the commercial-antitrust link. -
Fourqurean v. NCAA (W.D. Wis. 2025):
Fourqurean also granted an injunction, targeting the Five-Year Rule’s four-season limit (not specifically JUCO-related). It found the rule anticompetitive but focused on individual circumstances (e.g., a player’s mental health struggles) rather than market-wide effects. Elad shares the pro-athlete outcome but offers a broader market analysis, aligning more closely with Pavia’s systemic approach. -
Goldstein v. NCAA (M.D. Ga. 2025):
In contrast, Goldstein denied an injunction, ruling the Five-Year and JUCO Rules non-commercial, relying on O’Bannon v. NCAA (9th Cir. 2015) to distinguish eligibility from compensation rules. Elad rejects this view, arguing post-Alston realities blur that line. Goldstein’s lack of expert evidence contrasts with Elad’s robust record, highlighting evidentiary differences and the import of having an economic expert in these matters. -
Osuna v. NCAA (E.D. Tenn. 2025):
Osuna also denied relief, deeming the JUCO Rule’s commercial status uncertain and finding insufficient evidence of market-wide anticompetitive effects on a “quick look.” Elad counters with a detailed record and expert analysis, explicitly finding market harm, showing how evidentiary depth can sway outcomes.
Elad aligns with Pavia and Fourqurean in favoring athletes but stands out for its comprehensive market analysis and rejection of outdated precedent, differing sharply from Goldstein and Osuna’s conservative stances.
Next Steps in Athletes’ Challenges to NCAA Eligibility Rules
The Elad ruling could catalyze further challenges to NCAA eligibility rules, particularly those tied to JUCO or time-based restrictions. Potential next steps include:
-
Increased Litigation:
Athletes may target other eligibility constraints (e.g., redshirt limits, preventing football and basketball players from being drafted and remaining eligible) using Elad’s commerciality and market-harm framework, especially where NIL opportunities are at stake. -
NCAA Policy Shifts:
Facing mounting losses, the NCAA might proactively revise rules, as seen with the Pavia-triggered blanket waiver. A broader waiver or rule overhaul could emerge to preempt lawsuits, though Elad suggests ad hoc fixes won’t suffice. -
Appellate Clarification:
The district court split (Elad, Pavia, Fourqurean vs. Goldstein, Osuna) underscores the need for appellate guidance. The Third Circuit or Supreme Court may soon define the post-Alston scope of antitrust in collegiate sports, potentially solidifying Elad’s approach. -
Legislative Pressure:
Successes like Elad could push Congress to regulate college sports, balancing athlete rights with NCAA governance, though political gridlock may delay this.
The ruling emboldens athletes to challenge restrictive policies, leveraging NIL’s economic leverage, while pressuring the NCAA to adapt or face further judicial setbacks.
Implications for Ante Brzovic’s Case
Ante Brzovic, a basketball player suing the NCAA in the District of South Carolina (filed April 6, 2025), seeks a preliminary injunction against the Five-Year Rule’s application to his JUCO time. Full disclosure: Heitner Legal represents Brzovic in his pending case against the NCAA. Elad offers a potent blueprint:
-
Commerciality Argument:
Elad’s finding that the JUCO Rule is commercial due to its NIL impact directly supports Brzovic’s claim. Brzovic can show that his eligibility affects his NIL earnings and thus Elad’s logic applies seamlessly. -
Market Harm Evidence:
Elad’s reliance on expert testimony (e.g., Dr. Maxcy) to prove market distortion sets a standard Brzovic will emulate with Dr. Maxcy serving as his expert witness as well. Demonstrating how the rule skews the labor market for Division I basketball players should mirror Elad’s success. -
Irreparable Harm:
Elad’s recognition of unquantifiable losses (e.g., career opportunities, personal growth) bolsters Brzovic’s case. Missing a season could similarly derail his NBA prospects and NIL deals, harms Elad deems irreparable. -
Evidentiary Strategy:
Elad’s detailed record contrasts with Goldstein and Osuna’s failures, and Brzovic’s robust evidence—expert reports and NIL data—should assist Brzovic to prevail.
Conclusion
The Jett Elad v. NCAA ruling is a landmark victory for college athletes, affirming that eligibility rules impacting NIL are fair game for antitrust challenges. Its alignment with Pavia and Fourqurean, divergence from Goldstein and Osuna, and evidentiary rigor signal a turning point.