Five years to graduate, five years to compete? NCAA Eligibility Rules are Under Fire Yet Again.

[1]

It was the evening of Saturday, March 5, 2025, at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where thousands gathered to watch Penn State’s 184-pound wrestler, Carter Starocci, make history as the first Five-Time NCAA Division I Wrestling Champion.[2]  Starocci, who competed for Penn State from fall of 2019 through spring of 2025, was among many athletes who took advantage of the "free year" granted to NCAA athletes due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted the 2020-21 athletic season.[3] Should five years of competition be the standard? That question now sits at the forefront of a recent lawsuit filed earlier this month. 

The Lawsuit: Patterson v. NCAA 

On September 2, 2025, several players on Vanderbilt's Division I football team, along with other collegiate athletes, filed a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA.[4] The complaint argues that the NCAA's eligibility limits, including the "five-year rule" and "redshirt" practices, violate several antitrust laws by restricting the market for college athletes and their opportunities to compete.[5] Under the NCAA's "five-year rule," a student-athlete must complete all seasons of competition within five calendar years while enrolled full-time and may not compete in more than four seasons in any one sport.[6] The "redshirt rule," although not a single formal bylaw, allows an athlete to preserve a season of eligibility by sitting out or competing minimally (depending on the sport) to develop skills, focus on academics, or recover from an injury.[7] 

The plaintiffs argue that these overlapping rules suppress athletes' "institutional mobility and unlawfully constrict the market for college athletes' services," including potential NIL earnings.[8] They claim that the restrictions unfairly penalize academically eligible, high-performing athletes who choose to compete rather than redshirting, forcing them to forfeit a year of eligibility and potential market value without any legitimate justification.[9]

The complaint highlights recent NCAA actions, to show that these eligibility limits are unnecessary. During the COVID-19 pandemic, athletes who enrolled between 2017 and 2020 were given an "extra-year" waiver that allowed five seasons of competition in five, or even six, years.[10] Additionally, the complaint refers to the NCAA's termination of the "one-year sit-out rule" in 2023, which now allows all athletes who enter the transfer portal to be immediately eligible to compete.[11] The plaintiffs contend that both the voluntary amendment and removal of eligibility restrictions is yet another instance that shows the illegitimacy of both the "five-year" and "redshirt" rules. 

The Potential Impact on Collegiate Athletics

A decision in favor of these athletes could mark another landmark moment in college sports. Programs may prioritize retaining veteran athletes, while athletes gain additional time to develop physically and benefit from another year of NIL deals and potential earnings. However, critics warn that emphasizing veteran retention may hinder the recruitment and development of younger talent. Athletic programs may redirect their finances toward retaining a top fifth-year player who is considering entering the professional draft, rather than attracting high school recruits with facilities, scholarships, and NIL potential earnings. 

Given the NCAA's recent track record of antitrust losses with landmark decisions like the House v. NCAA case, which resulted in a $2.8 billion settlement resolving athletes' claims that the NCAA rules unlawfully limited their ability to compete and earn within the five-year eligibility window, and the way college athletics have become more market-driven, expanding eligibility to five full years seems like a logical step.[12] The NCAA has already proven it can function effectively underextended eligibility. Allowing five full years of competition would be particularly beneficial in sports where professional opportunities are scarce or highly competitive. If the NCAA is committed to supporting athletes in today's monetized landscape, a five-year eligibility period should not be an exception—it should be the standard.

Katelyn Fuller (staff writer) is a 1L at Villanova Law from Middletown, DE and the surrounding Philadelphia suburbs. She earned her B.A. in International Relations with a minor in Sport Management from the University of Delaware. At Villanova, Katelyn serves as a 1L Rep. for the Fashion Law Society and is a member of the Sports Law Society, Intellectual Property Society, and the Sports Law Blog staff. Prior to Villanova Law, Katelyn worked at NFL Films as a Licensing and Research Intern. She aspires to pursue a legal career in collegiate athletics or within professional sports - particularly the NFL - focusing on in-house counsel, content licensing, and brand management. 

References:

[1] Tim Weight. (January 21, 2023). Flickr.

[2] Audrey Snyder. How Penn State wrestler Carter Starocci became a 5-time national champion. (March 23, 2025). https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6223952/2025/03/23/carter-starocci-penn-state-wrestling-national-champion/

[3] Id. 

[4] Dan Murphy. College athletes suing NCAA to extend eligibility to 5 seasons. (Sep. 2, 2025). https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/46141528/two-vanderbilt-players-suing-ncaa-extend-eligibility

[5] Id.

[6] See 2025-26 NCAA Division I Manual, Bylaw 12.6.

[7] See 2025-26 NCAA Division I Manual, Bylaws 12.6.1.7.1(a), at 48 (2025), 12.6.3.1.6, at 50 (2025), 14.3.1.2, at 140 (2025).

[8] Patterson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 3:25-cv-0094 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 2, 2025).

[9] Id.

[10] Id. 

[11] Id.

[12] House v. NCAA, 545 F. Supp. 3d 804 (N.D. Cal. 2021).