“Everyone is getting another year.” It’s the phrase being batted around by many student-athletes looking to extend their college careers. The news said someone got six, seven, or even eight years of eligibility and now the wave of post-covid student-athletes want to know why they cannot at least get five years like so many student-athletes before them.

Five years to play four has long been the NCAA staple but recent world events (the aforementioned Covid), the transfer portal, and NIL have all led to student-athletes wanting to extend their careers more than ever.

Prior to the portal and new NCAA transfer rules, student-athletes faced several hurdles if they wanted to transfer more than once, and coaches did not have a whole new crop of seasoned players available each time the portal opened. Now players have more opportunities to be wooed by coaches and try on a new program to see if it is finally the right fit. And if it isn’t? They have the freedom to go somewhere else. And what happens when that next school finally feels like the right spot, but they only have one more year of eligibility left? They are going to want more.

More of what? It isn’t just about playing time anymore. With the dawn of the NIL era, student-athletes now have the ability to make money while they play collegiate athletics, perhaps more money than they will earn in their first job. And they understandably want to take advantage of that opportunity for as long as they can.

There is a record number of student-athletes in the transfer portal for 2025 and many of them do not have eligibility remaining but are simply waiting to see what happens in several court cases across the country. After the results from Pavia v. the NCAA resulted in a blanket waiver that extended an additional year of eligibility to former junior college athletes enrolled at a Division I institution facing their final season of eligibility – yes, it’s that specific – many peers are now hoping they will see a similar result.

Here are a few of the court cases that could shake-up the eligibility landscape:

Fourqurean v. NCAA

January 2025 – Nyzier Fourqurean, a former football player at the University of Wisconsin, asked the court for immediate injunctive relief to stop the NCAA from enforcing the five-year rule so he could play another year. Fourqurean had played one year at Division II Grand Valley State and argued that year should not count against his Division I eligibility because Division II does not offer the same experience as Division I. Fourqurean also cited personal difficulties during his year at Grand Valley State and that he wanted to stay in school to take advantage of NIL earnings and House settlement revenue sharing.

Elad v. NCAA

March 2025 – Jett Elad, a football player seeking an extra year to play at Rutgers University asked the court for an additional year of eligibility based on his competition at a junior college but also generally challenging the NCAA’s five-year ruling. Elad did not meet the criteria for the blanket waiver that came out of the Pavia lawsuit because he had a redshirt year and Pavia did not. Elad stated he was offered $500,000 in NIL money to attend Rutgers, and the NCAA’s denial of an additional year would keep him from being able to earn that money.

In April, Elad’s request for a preliminary injunction was granted citing that Elad was likely to succeed on his antitrust case due to the changing landscape of college athletics and finding irreparable harm to his NIL earning potential and future NFL career. The NCAA has appealed that ruling.

Zeigler v. NCAA

May 2025 – University of Tennessee basketball student-athlete Zakai Zeigler played all four of his seasons at the Division I level but filed a lawsuit challenging the NCAA’s limitation to only allow four seasons of athletics eligibility. Zeigler stated he could make between $2 and $4 million in NIL if he were able to play a fifth season at the University of Tennessee. Tennessee’s NIL state law also comes into play because it states that the NCAA “shall not interfere with, prohibit, restrict, or otherwise adversely affect an intercollegiate athlete’s ability to earn compensation…and shall not otherwise impact an intercollegiate athlete’s eligibility or full participation in intercollegiate athletic events” (TN Code Section 49, Chapter 2, Part 28). There will be a hearing on the motion for Preliminary Injunction June 6.

All of these lawsuits will have far reaching implications on NCAA eligibility.

The onslaught of lawsuits and waivers is likely not the status quo the NCAA wants to maintain but how do they solve this? Is it allowing every student-athlete five seasons of competition and withdrawing the waiver process entirely? Could it be tied to academics and if a student-athlete graduates in four years but wants to also complete a graduate degree they could do so while continuing to play college sports?

It is also fair to consider that five years might not be the stopping point. At what point will a court say that a person has had enough time in college even if they still have the ability to earn NIL compensation? Will there be a monetary threshold to consider? Could student-athletes with the ability to make over a certain amount in NIL be granted an additional year as opposed to a student-athlete who does not?

All of these are questions the NCAA needs to consider. One of the unseen consequences of NIL is the fact that student-athletes want to stay in school longer to continue earning more. The downstream impact of this, though, is that students coming from high school may not be able to compete for roster spots against 22- or 23-year-olds with more experience and physical ability, particularly in the coming world of roster limits. What will the lawsuits and waivers from these athletes look like in four years when they’ve only played their last two seasons because they simply didn’t have the skills or abilities their older teammates did?

Many coaches, compliance officers and student-athletes will be in limbo this summer while college sports waits to see the results of these lawsuits. Some student-athletes will have to decide to move on given how long the courts can take, but unless the NCAA decides to make sweeping changes to their eligibility rules, these lawsuits will not be going away anytime soon.