A new legal challenge against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has been launched, marking the first-ever class action lawsuit directly targeting its so-called redshirt eligibility rule. Filed in federal court in Nashville, the action was initiated by ten current and former student-athletes, including two from Vanderbilt University, who argue that NCAA rules limiting participation to four seasons over a five-year period violate federal antitrust laws and stifle both athletic opportunity and economic potential.
What’s Being Challenged?
At issue is the NCAA’s longstanding structure: while athletes have a five-year window to practice and graduate, they are restricted to playing in only four seasons. The built-in redshirt system allows an athlete to sit out one season—typically to develop or recover from injury—without losing a year of eligibility. However, plaintiffs say that if athletes opt not to redshirt, the cap on active gameplay unnecessarily truncates their opportunities. As they put it bluntly, “Athletes have five years to practice and five years to graduate. They should have five years to play.”
The complaint asserts that the rule is arbitrary and harms athletes, particularly in Division I sports, where refusing to redshirt still forces athletes to forfeit a year of competitive eligibility. This impacts their ability to compete—and to monetize their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL)—during what could otherwise be a productive fifth year.
Who’s Involved and Their Grievances
The plaintiffs include student-athletes across sports—two of whom are from Vanderbilt—that argue the NCAA’s constraint disadvantages athletes who either play too much to qualify for a redshirt but too little to justify a full season of contribution. A related case highlights several Vanderbilt football players who saw limited action as freshmen (for example, on special teams or “garbage time”) yet still lost a year of eligibility because they exceeded the redshirt threshold.
Among the named plaintiffs are players like former Hawaii quarterback Brayden Schager, who appeared in six games as a freshman—too many for a redshirt under NCAA rules. Others—the likes of Tennessee basketball guard Zakai Zeigler—are likewise pursuing eligibility extensions, citing significant NIL earnings they miss if restricted to just four seasons. Zeigler, who played four consecutive seasons, estimates a loss of $2-4 million if denied competitive fifth-year eligibility.
Legal Foundation and Context
This class action is not challenging the NCAA’s broader five-year eligibility clock but specifically targets the four-season cap within that period. Plaintiffs frame it as an antitrust violation, asserting the limitation unlawfully restricts fair competition—among athletes, among schools—and curbs economic prospects for student-athletes.
This lawsuit also comes on the heels of other legal challenges to NCAA eligibility rules. In particular:
- A U.S. appeals court upheld the four-seasons-in-five-years rule in a dispute involving Wisconsin quarterback Nyzier Fourqurean, though the case continues to proceed in lower courts. Critics, including a dissenting judge, argued the rule reduces labor-market competition by forcing out experienced athletes.
- The high-profile Diego Pavia case received an injunction granting him a sixth year of eligibility after a judge ruled that junior college years shouldn’t count against NCAA eligibility.
- The broader landscape includes NCAA’s multibillion-dollar settlement in California, allowing schools to directly compensate athletes for NIL—a seismic shift legalized in federal settlement terms.
NCAA’s Response and Legislative Pressure
In response to mounting criticism, the NCAA maintains that its eligibility rules uphold the student-athlete model—balancing academics, athletics, and amateurism. A spokesperson reiterated that the four-seasons cap—within a five-year participation window—serves to preserve those foundational principles.
Elsewhere, NCAA leadership has cautioned that challenges like these strike at the essence of collegiate athletics, where athletes are students first and participants second. That said, NCAA power conferences are actively lobbying Congress for antitrust exemptions—such as those proposed under the SCORE Act—that would harden eligibility restrictions from future litigation.
Why This Matters
This lawsuit, Langston Patterson et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, represents the first collective legal attack on NCAA’s redshirt rule. If granted class-action status and successful, it could reshape eligibility protocols—even opening the door to a “five-for-five” system, where athletes may compete in all five years available to them.
Implications extend beyond individual athletes. A court mandate to allow competition across all five years could delay NFL draft entries, shift team-building strategies, and alter the economic landscape of college sports—including enhanced NIL opportunities for athletes in their fifth year.
Should courts declare the redshirt rule anticompetitive, it may trigger appeals and potentially major decisions from federal appellate courts—or even the Supreme Court if divergent rulings emerge among circuits.
Summary
- Lawsuit filed: Ten current/former U.S. student-athletes challenge NCAA’s restriction of four seasons of competition within a five-year eligibility period.
- Legal aim: Secure class-action status and remove the forced non-playing redshirt year, enabling athletes to compete in all five years.
- Key defense: The NCAA claims its rules nurture the amateur model and academic priorities.
- Broader context: Part of a wave of antitrust suits (e.g., Pavia, Fourqurean, Zeigler), amid growing legal and legislative pressure on NCAA governance.
- Potential impact: Could transform college eligibility norms, reshape NIL earnings trajectories, and influence league and draft dynamics.
This case isn’t just about eligibility—it’s about athlete rights, economic opportunity, and the future of college sports governance.
👉 Stay informed. Follow JDJournal for real-time updates on this lawsuit and the changing legal landscape shaping the NCAA and student-athlete rights.
See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile
