WHEN THE CLOCK RUNS OUT: THE NCAA’S New 5-FOR-5 RULE

Sports LawLaw & PolicyName Image Likeness

Oct 25

Author: Molly Glass, Senior Editor

Introduction

Just weeks before the 2026–27 collegiate athletic season began, programs were finalizing rosters under an eligibility framework that remained under review by a federal appellate court.[i] Known as the “5-for-5” rule, the new framework was formally adopted by the Division I Cabinet on June 23, 2026, replacing the traditional enrollment-based eligibility clock with an age-based model.[ii] Despite its goal of simplifying eligibility, the new rule has left courts with the power to decide when a student-athlete’s college career ends.[iii]

Prior to the adoption of the 5-for-5 rule, Division I student-athletes could compete in four seasons over five years.[iv] This eligibility framework allowed athletes to preserve a season of competition through a redshirt or waiver, while the five-year eligibility clock continued to run.[v] The 5-for-5 rule fundamentally alters that framework by permitting five seasons of competition within a continuous five-year period.[vi] As a result, redshirt and waiver exceptions are largely eliminated – limiting athletes’ ability to preserve a season of competition when faced with career-altering injuries, while allowing others to compete for an additional season in pursuit of Name, Image, and Likeness (“NIL”) opportunities.[vii]

Background

The litigation at the center of this debate, Wisne v. NCAA, involves twelve Division I athletes, led by Brock Wisne, all of whom began their collegiate athletic careers during the 2022–2023 season.[viii] The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit after the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (“NCAA”) implementation of the new eligibility framework left them ineligible for a fifth season.[ix]

On July 31, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility restrictions against qualifying student-athletes from the high school class of 2022 who are seeking a fifth season of competition.[x] The court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their Section 1 Sherman Act claim, concluding that the restriction likely constitutes an unreasonable restraint on the labor market for Division I athletes.[xi] The NCAA appealed, and on August 21, 2026, the Tenth Circuit stayed the injunction pending appeal, allowing the NCAA to resume enforcement.[xii]

The Effects of the “5-for-5” Rule on Groups of Student-Athletes

The Class of 2022 lawsuit is only the beginning, and it invites courts to referee eligibility questions well outside their traditional role. By replacing one set of eligibility disputes with another, the new framework pulls courts into deciding how far the NCAA may go in choosing which student-athletes receive a fifth season and which do not.[xiii] The new rule adversely affects several groups of student-athletes, including those seeking medical redshirts and incoming freshmen who may face increased competition for limited roster spots.[xiv] At the same time, it gives veteran athletes a reason to stay in school longer to capitalize on NIL opportunities.[xv]

I. Medical Redshirts

Traditionally, a medical hardship waiver, widely known as a medical redshirt, allowed NCAA student-athletes to preserve a year of eligibility after suffering a season-ending injury or illness early in the season.[xvi] This eligibility rule helped ensure that student-athletes remained eligible to compete for four seasons within a five-year eligibility window.[xvii] Under the “5-for-5” model, however, redshirt rules are eliminated, with limited exceptions.[xviii] While the new framework emphasizes easing the eligibility process, injured athletes are now forced to miss out on a season, as they no longer have the waiver process available to them to recover a lost season.[xix] Without that safety net, the rule raises concerns that athletes may face increased pressure to play through injuries, rather than risk permanently losing a season of competition.[xx]

II. Incoming Freshmen

In 2025, nearly 27,000 students entered the transfer portal.[xxi] As coaches browse athletes to fill their roster, they are not only looking at the high school students, but also at the tens of thousands of well-seasoned athletes.[xxii] Even prior to the NCAA’s adoption of the new eligibility rule, the increase in the number of graduate students who began filling roster positions was already causing concern.[xxiii] The adoption of the new eligibility rule has only intensified the issue. As coaches prepare rosters and form teams, student-athletes with four years of collegiate training may increasingly be rostered over newly 19-year-old high school graduates.[xxiv]

The Economic and Legal Effects of the “5-for-5” Rule

The “5-for-5” rule not only affects student-athletes’ ability to compete, but also creates economic and legal consequences. A lost season of eligibility can also mean a loss of NIL opportunities, and for the highest-earning athletes, those opportunities can be valued at seven figures.[xxv] The economic value tied to eligibility is central to the Sherman Act claim raised in Wisne, and has moved questions traditionally left for the NCAA into the courts.[xxvi]

I. The Sherman Act

Section 1 of the Sherman Act, enacted in 1890, prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain trade.[xxvii] To fall within the scope of the Sherman Act, however, the challenged restraint must be commercial in nature.[xxviii] As explained by the court in Wisne, federal appellate courts have determined that NCAA eligibility rules fit this category, as they impose restrictions on the labor of student-athletes.[xxix] Therefore, eligibility questions are no longer left solely to the NCAA to decide.[xxx] Instead, courts may be required to analyze eligibility rules under the Sherman Act.

II. Name, Image, and Likeness

Today, student-athletes are more visible to the public than ever before.[xxxi] This shift began in 2021, when the NCAA adopted an interim policy allowing collegiate athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness.[xxxii] Before then, NCAA rules barred them from earning money off their personal brand.[xxxiii] NIL compensation has changed the value of an additional season, and the court in Wisne acknowledged income as part of what the athletes stood to lose.[xxxiv] For many Division I NCAA athletes, an additional season provides another year to capitalize on their collegiate careers.[xxxv] For some athletes, staying in college for an additional season may be more financially beneficial than entering professional sports.[xxxvi] For example, Caitlin Clark’s estimated $3.1 million in NIL earnings during her collegiate career far exceeded the $76,000 base salary of her WNBA rookie contract.[xxxvii] Clark, however, is an outlier, as she is an athlete with significant professional opportunities. For most student-athletes, an additional season may be their last chance to build on their athletic careers, increasing the incentive to stay for a fifth season.[xxxviii]

Conclusion

The NCAA continues to adopt rules that change the landscape of collegiate sports. As demonstrated through Wisne, courts are deciding not only questions of law, but also when a collegiate athlete’s career ends.[xxxix] Though the NCAA has attempted to adopt rules that ease its eligibility processes, it has increasingly left courts to determine how those rules may be enforced.

[i] Meghan Durham Wright, Division I Adopts Age-Based Eligibility Model, NCAA (June 23, 2026), https://www.ncaa.org/news/division-i-adopts-age-based-eligibility-model/.

[ii] Id.

[iii] See Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] Id.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Meghan Durham Wright, Division I Adopts Age-Based Eligibility Model, NCAA (June 23, 2026), https://www.ncaa.org/news/division-i-adopts-age-based-eligibility-model/.

[viii] See Wisne v. NCAA, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171332, at *1–3 (D. Colo. July 31, 2026).

[ix] Id. at *5.

[x] Id. at *2 & n.1; see also Dan Murphy, Court Halts Order, Denies Extra Year of Eligibility, ESPN (Aug. 21, 2026), https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/49682102/court-halts-order-denies-extra-year-eligibility.

[xi] See Wisne, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171332, at *54.

[xii] Dan Murphy, Court Halts Order, Denies Extra Year of Eligibility, ESPN (Aug. 21, 2026), https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/49682102/court-halts-order-denies-extra-year-eligibility.

[xiii] See Wisne, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171332, at *3–7.

[xiv] Wright, supra note i; NCSA College Recruiting, How the Transfer Portal Impacts College Recruiting, NCSA Sports (June 30, 2026), https://www.ncsasports.org/blog/transfer-portal-impact-on-college-recruiting.

[xv] Wisne, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171332, at 5–6, 43–44.

[xvi] NCAA Medical Redshirt: How It Works, Eligibility Rules, and Who Qualifies, TouchHOF (Apr. 21, 2026), https://touchhalloffame.us/blog/ncaa-medical-redshirt-eligibility-rules-guide/.

[xvii] Id.

[xviii] Wright, supra note i (exceptions include military service, religious missions, and pregnancy).

[xix] See id.

[xx] Id.

[xxi] NCSA College Recruiting, How the Transfer Portal Impacts College Recruiting, NCSA Sports (June 30, 2026), https://www.ncsasports.org/blog/transfer-portal-impact-on-college-recruiting.

[xxii] See id.

[xxiii] Dean Golembeski, Graduate Transfers Disrupt College Sports, BestColleges (Apr. 15, 2022), https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2022/04/15/ncaa-graduate-transfers-nil-disrupt-college-sports/.

[xxiv] See id.

[xxv] NIL Valuations, ON3, https://www.on3.com/nil/rankings/player/nil-valuations/ (last updated Oct. 4, 2026).

[xxvi] See Wisne, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171332, at 5, 22–24.