Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Tatuo Martinson. Martinson has played two years at JUCO American River College (2019-20; 2021-22), and three years at UNLV, including a redshirt year (2022-23; 2023-24; 2024-25). Like others in similar circumstances, Martinson argues that the NCAA's Five Year Rule as applied to former JUCO athletes is anticompetitive and violative of antitrust law, and he has requested a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the NCAA from enforcing the Five Year Rule to bar him from playing for UNLV in 2025. Of note, Martinson has hired the same attorneys as Cortez Braham Jr., who was able to secure a preliminary injunction in the same court.

(No. 25-cv-01376, D. Nevada, Judge Richard F. Boulware, II, filed July 30, 2025)

Description of the Case

Jett Elad, a football player who has played for Ohio University (2019, 2020, 2021), Garden City Community College (2022), and UNLV (2023, 2024), filed this lawsuit seeking an extra year to play at Rutgers for the 2025 season based on the blanket waiver issued by the NCAA after the Pavia v. NCAA decision. Along with making a similar case as Pavia in challenging the inclusion of JUCO years towards NCAA Division I eligibility, he also challenges the NCAA's Five-Year Rule more generally, arguing that the NCAA's confusing and inconsistent approach to granting waivers to the Five-Year Rule harms his ability to compete in NIL labor markets. He claims that he was offered about $500,000 in NIL money to attend Rutgers, and that the NCAA's refusal to grant him a waiver impedes his ability to earn that money. He sought preliminary injunctive relief so that he would be able to compete for a starting position in Rutgers's spring practice, which started on March 25.

(No. 25-cv-01981, D. New Jersey, Judge Zahid N. Quaraishi, filed March 20, 2025)

(Appeal of Preliminary Injunction: No. 25-01870, 3rd Cir., filed May 6, 2025)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Nyzier Fourqurean, a former (class of 2024) football player for the University of Wisconsin. In a manner similar to Diego Pavia in Pavia v. NCAA, Fourqurean seeks immediate injunctive relief stopping the NCAA from enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.8.1 (the "Five-Year Rule") against him to allow him to play an additional year. He claims that his year at NCAA Division II Grand Valley State should not be counted against him, given his personal difficulties during that year and the fact that Division II does not offer the same economic and developmental opportunities as Division I. He wishes to stay in school to take advantage of NIL opportunities and House settlement revenue sharing.

(No. 25-cv-00068, W.D. Wisc., Judge William M. Conley, filed January 29, 2025)

(Appeal of Preliminary Injunction: No. 25-1187, 7th Cir., filed February 7, 2025)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Stan Hamilton, a track-and-field athlete at Southeastern Louisiana University (SELU). He challenges the NCAA's eligibility rules. He challenges NCAA Bylaws 12.02.14 (which defines "Student-Athlete"), 12.8.1 ("Five-Year Rule") and 12.8.1.1 ("Determining the Start of the Five-Year Period") while arguing that his five-year clock was started too soon. Based on his affidavits, it appears that Hamilton has only used two years of his eligibility -- his senior year at Prairie View A&M and one post-graduate year at SELU -- but the dispute appears to be when his eligibility clock with Prairie View A&M started, as he initially in his freshman year refused to take a sports physical which led to him not being permitted to access the athletic facilities and compete with the team. As such, the NCAA appears to be arguing that his clock started during his freshman year, giving him five years (including a COVID year). He argues that this application of the applicable bylaws constitutes a group boycott in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act while also arguing that the NCAA "acting as an employer" violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act. He seeks a temporary restraining order against the NCAA (and SELU -- though they are not a named party) disallowing them from denying him a scholarship moving forward. Of note, Hamilton has filed this complaint pro se, meaning that he is not represented by a lawyer.

(No. 25-cv-00924, E.D. Louisiana, Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown, filed January 30, 2025)

Description of the Case

Kaedin Robinson, a football player who has played for JUCO ASA Brooklyn (2019, 2020), Central Florida (2021), and Appalachian State (2022, 2023, 2024), filed this lawsuit seeking an extra year to play at UCLA for the 2025 season based on the blanket waiver issued by the NCAA after the Pavia v. NCAA decision. As with Jett Elad,, along with making a similar case as Pavia in challenging the inclusion of JUCO years towards NCAA Division I eligibility, Robinson also challenges the NCAA's Five-Year Rule more generally, arguing that the NCAA's confusing and inconsistent approach to granting waivers to the Five-Year Rule harms his ability to compete in NIL labor markets. He claims that he was offered about $450,000 in NIL money to attend UCLA, and that the NCAA's refusal to grant him a waiver impedes his ability to earn that money and raise his future draft stock. Robinson also challenges the NCAA's No Agent and No Draft rules -- a necessary step given that he entered the 2025 (and was not drafted) when the NCAA denied his eligibility waiver. He seems preliminary injunctive relief to be able to play for UCLA during the 2025 football season.

(New Filing: No. 25-cv-06454, C.D. California, Judge Wesley L. Hsu, filed July 15, 2025)

(Initial Filing: No. 25-cv-07661, D. New Jersey, Judge Zahid N. Quaraishi, filed June 5, 2025, closed June 25, 2025)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is football player Jagger Giles. He challenges the NCAA's Five Year Clock rule, arguing that it violates antitrust law. After starting college at Cal State San Marcos in 2019-20 (where he did not participate in sports and dropped out during the spring semester) and sitting out in 2020-21, Giles played two seasons (2021 and 2022) at JUCO Grossmont College and two seasons (2023 and 2024) at Idaho State. He argues that his years at JUCO should not count towards his five year clock and that but for that five year rule he would be eligible under the Pavia waiver. Of note, his new transfer school -- University of San Diego -- refused to file a waiver on his behalf, telling him it would be fruitless, and also did not inform him of his ineligibility under the Pavia waiver until June 2025.

(No. 25-cv-01488, C.D. California, Judge James V. Selna, filed July 9, 2025)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is DaJuanye (DJ) Wingfield. He seeks an additional year of eligibility to play football at the University of Southern California (USC). For his career, Wingfield played two years at JUCO El Camino College (2019-20; 2021-22), two years at New Mexico (2022-23 (medical redshirt); 2023-24), and one year at Purdue (2024-25). He was not enrolled in any school in 2020-21 while he was caring for his mother -- a source of controvery, since the NCAA counts that year towards his overall five year clock. Like others in similar circumstances, Wingfield argues that the NCAA's Five Year Rule as applied to former JUCO athletes is anticompetitive and violative of antitrust law, and he has requested a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the NCAA from enforcing the Five Year Rule to bar him from playing for USC in 2025. He claims he would be deprived an NIL contract worth $210,000 and the opportunity to enhance his career and reputation by playing another year of Division I football.

(No. 25-cv-06875, C.D. California, District Judge Dolly M. Gee, filed July 28, 2025)

Description of the Case

Colorado State University football player Elias Larry filed this lawsuit seeking an additional year of intercollegiate athletics eligibility to play in the 2025-26 season. Like Corey Coley and Zakai Zeigler -- and unlike other athletes who have filed similar lawsuits -- Larry does not have a JUCO or Division II/III year that he wishes to not count towards his eligibility: instead, he has played four seasons (three years at Navy, one year at Colorado State) in four years starting as a true freshman and seeks a fifth season within his five year eligibility window. He cites his desire to finish his undergraduate degree program (he is set to graduate in December 2025, but needs his scholarship), and mental and emotional health challenges in 2023 that led to his transfer from Navy that he believes makes him eligible for a waiver. He also points to Navy's practice as a service academy to generally not redshirt players, since service academy students must graduate in four years barring extenuating circumstances. Of note, Larry has filed this complaint pro se, meaning that he is not represented by a lawyer.

(No. 25-cv-01761, D. Colorado, Judge Gordon P Gallagher, filed June 5, 2025)

Description of the Case

Derrin Boyd, a basketball player who has played for NAIA Georgetown College (2019-20 (redshirt), 2020-21, 2021-22), Lipscomb University (2022-23 and 2023-24), and College of Charleston (2024-25) filed this lawsuit challenging the NCAA's Five Year Rule under antitrust law. Similar to others who have filed similar cases, he argues that at least one of his non-Division 1 years -- in this case at NAIA -- should not count towards his eligibility clock. He argues in part that because he was in NAIA during COVID, he was not able to take advantage of the waiver pausing the number of years counting towards their eligibility clock, and he argues this is arbitrary. He states that he had several offers from Division I institutions -- including a $350,000 offer from Vanderbilt -- but the NCAA's Five Year Clock is keeping him from that compensation.

(No. 25-cv-00729, M.D. Tennessee, Chief Judge William L. Campbell, filed June 30, 2025)

Description of the Case

This lawsuit -- filed by the attorneys who filed Pavia v. NCAA -- involves four athlete-plaintiffs: Christopher Bellamy, Demarcus Griffin, TJ Smith, and Targhee Lambson. All four athletes played at least two years in JUCO before transferring to NCAA schools. Bellamy, Griffin, and Smith have all exhausted their five year clocks and thus challenge the Five Year Rule (and its related bylaws: Bylaws 12.8, 12.02.6, and 14.3.3), while Lambson -- who signed an agent and received $2,750 in training fees while being initially unaware of the Pavia blanket waiver -- challenges the NCAA's prohibition on signing with an agent, Bylaw 12.1.2(g). The plaintiffs collectively challenge these rules as violative of the Sherman Antitrust Act and seek injunctive relief that would allow them to play in 2025.

• Lead plaintiff Christopher Bellamy played one year at JUCO Vermillion Community College (2019), one year at JUCO Coffeyville Community College (2021 -- he was on the team but the team did not compete in 2020), and two years at New Mexico State (2022-23). He did not play in 2024, but has been recruited to play at Vanderbilt if given another year of eligibility.
• Demarcus Griffin played two years at JUCO Independence Community College (2019 and Spring 2021), two years at Houston (2021-22), and two years at Louisiana Tech (2023-24). Louisiana Tech is holding a roster spot and NIL money for him if he is given another year of eligibility.
• TJ Smith played two years at JUCO Iowa Western Community College (2019-20), one year at Division 2 Upper Iowa University (2021), one year at Florida Atlantic (2022), and two years at North Alabama (2023-24). He has received interest from teams for 2025, but none (including North Alabama) are willing to file a waiver application on his behalf.
• Finally, Targhee Lambson played two years at JUCO Snow College (2021-22) and two years at Southern Utah (2023-24). He fits within the Pavia blanket waiver, but given his signing with an agent and receiving money for training he needs a waiver and is concerned that waiver will not be processed in time for him to transfer in the new transfer portal for designated student-athletes (though it is unclear whether Lambson is eligible for this window). He has been recruited to play at Vanderbilt.

(No. 25-cv-00750, M.D. Tennessee, Chief Judge William L. Campbell, Jr., filed July 3, 2025)

Description of the Case

Cortez Braham Jr., a football player who has played for Hutchinson Community College (2019, 2020, 2021), West Virginia (2022 and 2023), and Nevada (2024), filed this lawsuit seeking an extra year to play Division I college football for the 2025 season. Along with making similar cases as Diego Pavia and Jett Elad in challenging the inclusion of JUCO years towards NCAA Division I eligibility and challenging the NCAA's Five Year Rule more generally, he also highlights Nevada's refusal to file a waiver request with the NCAA on his behalf, meaning that he is unable to apply for a waiver on his own. Braham also challenges the NCAA's "2-4" or "4-2-4" rule requiring an athlete transferring from a JUCO to a Division I institution to have a 2.5 GPA, which is higher than the 2.0 required for transferees between four-year institutions. He argues this rule and the JUCO rule unduly discriminate against junior college athletes in violation of antitrust law. All in all, Braham claims that if allowed another season he could receive nearly $500,000 in NIL money and further his professional opportunities.

(25-cv-00253, D. Nevada, Judge Miranda M. Du, filed May 27, 2025)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Jackson Hasz, a football player for UNLV. For his career, Hasz has played two years (including a redshirt year) at JUCO Iowa Western Community College (2019-20), two years at Buffalo (2021-22), and two years at UNLV (2023-24). Like others in similar circumstances, Hasz argues that the NCAA's Five Year Rule as applied to former JUCO athletes is anticompetitive and violative of antitrust law, and he has requested a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the NCAA from enforcing the Five Year Rule to bar him from playing for UNLV in 2025.

(No. 25-cv-00398, D. Nebraska, Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon, filed June 16, 2025)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Justice Hill, who most recently was a football player for Murray State. He challenges the NCAA's Four Seasons Rule as it applies to JUCO and their Five Year Rule more generally. Hill's history in college sports is complex, as he has wanted to be a two-sport athlete in football and men's basketball but was unable at times due to suffering from long COVID after initially contradicting the disease during the 2020-21 year. While his contraction of COVID was undiagnosed, it led to a significant decrease in energy and stamina levels, resulting in Hill not feeling healthy enough to play football until recently. Before playing football for Murray State in 2024 (which required a waiver from the NCAA), Hill played men's basketball for JUCO Salt Lake Community College (2020-21), Murray State (2020-21 and 2021-22), Louisiana State (2022-23), and Loyola Marymount (CA) (2023-24). He had also been initially recruited to play at Arkansas in 2019 but was "run off" the team after a coaching change, pushing him to Salt Lake CC. Hill argues that the application of eligibility rules on him as a two-sport athlete who has suffered circumstances behind his control (specifically long COVID and the Arkansas "run off") is anticompetitive and a violation of antitrust law.

(No. 25-cv-00591, E.D. Arkansas, Judge Lee P. Rudofsky, filed June 13, 2025)

Description of the Case

University of Tennessee basketball player Zakai Zeigler filed this lawsuit seeking an additional year of intercollegiate athletics eligibility to play in the 2025-26 season. Unlike other athletes who have filed similar lawsuits, Zeigler does not have a JUCO or Division II/III year that he wishes to not count towards his eligibility: instead, he played four full years at Tennessee, starting as a true freshman, and instead wishes to play in the fifth year of his eligibility window while attending graduate school at Tennessee. As a result, he more directly challenges the limitation only allowing four athletic seasons within his five-year window. He alleges that he could receive between $2 and $4 million in NIL earnings from Tennessee's collective if able to play, and that he would be able to further his professional basketball aspirations. In a unique twist, Zeigler also argues that Tennessee's recently passed NIL law emboldens his antitrust claims, as the law states that the NCAA "shall not '[i]nterfere 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'" and that the law read with Tennessee's state trade practices law "creates a coherent state policy against against anticompetitive restrictions in collegiate athletics."

(Original District Court Filing: No. 25-cv-00226, E.D. Tennessee, Judge Katherine A. Crytzer, filed May 20, 2025)

(Appeal of Denial of Preliminary Injunction: No. 25-5576, 6th Circuit, filed May 20, 2025)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Rylen Walker, a men's basketball player. He is challenging the NCAA's Four Seasons Rule, specifically as it applies to junior colleges and specifically the fact that the Pavia blanket waiver for ex-JUCO athletes has not been applied to Division 2 athletes like him. (Relevant bylaws are NCAA Division II Bylaw 14.4.3 and 14.4.3.2 (the “10-Semester/15-Quarter Rule”) and Bylaw 14.02.12 (the “Intercollegiate Competition Rule”)) He has played four seasons total in four years: one year for JUCO Mississippi Delta Community College (2021-22), one year for JUCO Hinds Community College (2022-23), and two years for Division 2 Miles College (2023-24, 2024-25). He argues that this history hypothetically makes him eligible for the Pavia blanket waiver if it were applied to Division 2 athletes, and that the fact that the Pavia only applies to Division 1 athletes is anticompeitive under antitrust law. He also notes that his most recent school, Miles College, is unable to file a waiver request on his behalf because he is no longer on the team (due to exhausting his eligibility) and that under NCAA rules he is unable to file a waiver on his own behalf, and he feels that these facts support his claims that the applicable NCAA rules are anticompetitive. He also notes that to an unnamed Division 1 about transferring, but that he would be unable to transfer most of his credits, losing degree progression while also forcing him into a different degree than the one he wishes to pursue.

(No.25-cv-00514, M.D. Louisiana, Judge John W. deGravelles, filed June 13, 2025)

Description of the Case

Eastern Michigan University football player Blake Bustard filed this lawsuit seeking an additional year of intercollegiate athletics eligibility to play in the 2025-26 season. As a state court case in a state where court filings cannot be downloaded, information is limited, but what is known is that Bustard has played Division II Wayne State in 2021, 2022, and 2023 and Eastern Michigan in 2024. He presumably wishes to not count one or more of his Division II years towards his Division I eligibility.

(No. 25-000779-CP, 22nd Circuit Court of Michigan, filed May 29, 2025)

Description of the Case

This lawsuit filed by Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia seeks a declaration that the combination of NCAA Bylaw 12.8 (granting four years of eligibility in five years regardless of whether the athlete is playing sports or playing at a non-NCAA school) and NCAA Bylaw 12.02.6 (defining intercollegiate competition as including competition at both four-year and two-year institutions) is illegal under antitrust law. Pavia claims that the fact that the rule subtracts one year of NCAA eligibility while players are playing at junior colleges has no procompetitive basis and deprives athletes from time where higher NIL earnings are available to them, i.e., while they are playing at Division I four-year institutions. Pavia claims that the NCAA's implementation of a COVID extension year that allowed some athletes to play five years in six calendar years shows that there is no real justification behind Bylaw 12.8

(Original District Court Filing: No. 24-cv-01336, M.D. Tenn., Chief Judge William L. Campbell, Jr., filed November 8, 2024)

(Appeal of Preliminary Injunction: No. 24-6153, 6th Cir., filed December 26, 2024)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Alberto Osuna Sanchez, a baseball player who recently enrolled at the University of Tennessee. In a manner similar to Diego Pavia in Pavia v. NCAA, Osuna seeks immediate injunctive relief stopping the NCAA from enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.8.1 (the "Five-Year Rule") against him to allow him to play an additional year. He claims that he is entitled to similar relief as Pavia given his two years spent at Walters State Community College (2019-20 and 2020-21) prior to enrolling at the University of North Carolina (2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24), and the University of Tampa (2024-25). Following the Pavia ruling, he was recruited by and transfered to Kansas State and now seeks a waiver to allow him to play in the Spring 2025 for Tennessee, as at Tennessee he "has already received an NIL opportunity that exceeds any NIL opportunities he has previously had."

(No. 25-cv-00062, E.D. Tennessee, Judge Charles E Atchley, Jr., filed February 12, 2025)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Trey Ciulla-Hall, a master's student at the Univeristy of Maryland. In a manner similar to Diego Pavia in Pavia v. NCAA, Ciulla-Hall seeks immediate injunctive relief stopping the NCAA from enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.8.1 (the "Five-Year Rule") against him to allow him to play an additional year. He claims that his year at NCAA Division II Stonehill College should not be counted towards his eligibility, given his personal difficulties during that year and the fact that Division II does not offer the same economic and developmental opportunities as Division I. He wishes to stay in school to take advantage of NIL opportunities and House settlement revenue sharing.

(No. 25-cv-10271, D. Massachusetts, Judge Denise J. Casper, filed February 4, 2025)

Description of the Cases

This group of lawsuits are filed by several groups of former star football and men's basketball players and attack the NCAA's longstanding ban on college athletes earning compensation for the use of their NIL in game broadcasts and highlights. Specifically, the suits claim that the NIL waivers that athletes used to sign as part of their national letters of intent were the product of an anticompetitive environment (as athletes could not go to other schools who might not require such an agreement), and that but for that waiver, athletes would be able to negotiate for the continued use of their NIL in game broadcast replays and highlights in NCAA-related media (i.e., on their website and on YouTube). Each are based in antitrust law, with the two cases that are filed in state courts, Bailey (NC) and Bush (CA), alleging violations of the relevant state antitrust law.

One key issue with these cases will be the statute of limitations, a legal concept that requires lawsuits to be filed within a certain period after the alleged harm. For antitrust law, the statute of limitations is four years, which explains why the House v. NCAA case and settlement class is limited to athletes who played after June 16, 2016 (as House was filed on June 15, 2020). Based on their complaint, it appears that the plaintiffs will counter this affirmative defense based on the continuing harm doctrine, arguing that the continued use of their NIL through the showing and sale of old game highlights continues to violate their rights.

Each of these lawsuits are class action lawsuits that seek to include (in various forms) all NCAA Division I athletes who participated in NCAA sports prior to June 15, 2016, which is the cutoff date for athletes part of the House v. NCAA case and settlement, and whose NIL has been used or licensed for commercial purposes by the NCAA, the Power Five conferences, or Veritone (an NCAA contractor tasked with archiving footage). Representative plaintiffs for each case include:

Description of the Case

This lawsuit is the aftermath of the University of Florida's recruitment of quarterback Jaden Rashada, who now plays for the University of Georgia. Rashada alleges that he was induced to flip his commitment from the University of Miami (and forgo an alleged $9.5 million NIL deal with Miami boosters) based on a promise that Florida's NIL collective, The Gator Collective, would sign him to a $13.85 million deal if he signed with Florida instead. Once Rashada signed his national letter of intent, those involved with his recruitment at Florida backed out of this commitment and claimed that no such promise was ever made.

Rashada has sued four defendants: Florida head football coach William "Billy" Napier, former Florida Director of Player Engagement & NIL Marcus Castro-Walker, Florida booster Hugh Hathcock, and Hathcock's company, Velocity Automotive Solutions.

(No. 24-cv-00219, N.D. Fla., Judge M. Casey Rodgers, filed May 21, 2024)

Description of the Case

The University of Wisconsin and their collective filed this lawsuit against the University of Miami after Miami induced freshman defensive back Xavier Lucas to transfer in December 2024 while Lucas was in the middle of his two-year NIL contract with Wisconsin. The lawsuit alleges that Miami sent a coach and donor to Lucas's Florida home in December 2024 and offered him a significant amount of money to transfer. The lawsuit makes four claims: tortious interference with university contract, tortious interference with collective contract, tortious interference with Wisconsin's prospective contracts with Lucas, and tortious interference with the collective's prospective contracts with Lucas. The lawsuit also seeks a declaratory judgment stating that what Miami did violated the law.

(No. 2025CV002039, Dane County Circuit Court of Wisconsin, filed June 20, 2025)

Description of the Case

This case involves a lawsuit by Louisiana State women's basketball player Last-Tear Poa -- an Australian national -- against the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) after the agency's denial of Poa's P-1A visa. International college athletes currently cannot enter into NIL deals on F-1 student visas (which do not permit off-campus and non-curricular work), and as such some athletes have sought P-1A visas (visas for internationally recognized athletes) instead. According to Poa's attorney, Poa's request was denied because (1) her proposed NIL activities were not seen as "ancillary promotional activities" and are unrelated to her status as an athlete, (2) her NIL representation agreement is not an agency agreement; and (3) she cannot attend school on a P-1A visa. Poa is challenging this ruling and the overall limits on P-1A visa access for college athletes.

Note: As an immigration case, this docket is sealed, so access to documents and deeper specifics on the case will be limited.

(No. 24-cv-00887, M.D. La., filed October 24, 2024)

Description of the Case

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit claim that they are employees and thus must be paid at the federal minimum wage (including time-and-a-half overtime) in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (9 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.) and similar state wage-and-hour law. They claim that their performance as athletes for universities constitutes work for those universities and thus creates an employment relationship.

This is a class action lawsuit involving several different classes: one FLSA collective action class for all Division I athletes in all sports and all genders within the FLSA statute of limitations and other classes for athletes who competed for universities in several different states (PA, NY, CT, NC, OR, LA, AZ, and IN). Representative lead plaintiffs are former Villanova football player Ralph "Trey" Johnson, former Fordham swimming and diving athlete Stephanie Kerkeles, former Fordham baseball player Nicholas Labella, former Sacred Heart tennis player Claudia Ruiz, former Cornell soccer player Jacob Willebeek-Lemair, former Lafayette tennis player Alexa Cooke, former Oregon track-and-field athlete Rhesa Foster, former Tulane football player Zachary Harris, former Notre Dame lacrosse player Matthew Schmidt, former Arizona softball player Tamara Schoen Statman, former Purdue softball player Gina Snyder, former Duke track-and-field athlete Esteban Suarez, and former Marist lacrosse player Liam Walsh.

(Original District Court Filing: No. 19-cv-05230, E.D. Penn., Judge John R. Padova, filed November 6, 2019)

(Appeal of Denial of Motion to Dismiss: No. 22-1223, 3d Cir., Judges Restrepo, Porter, and McKee, filed February 8, 2022, closed August 2, 2024)

Description of the Case

A group of female athletes filed this lawsuit attacking the NCAA's Transgender Eligibility Policies, claiming that the policies are discriminatory towards women and deprive women of equal opportunity in violation of Title IX by allowing transgender women born as males to participate in NCAA women's sports. The plaintiffs in particular focus on the NCAA allowing former University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas -- a transgender woman -- to compete in and win the gold medal in the women's 500-yard freestyle event at the 2022 NCAA Division I Swimming and Diving Championship hosted by Georgia Tech.

The lawsuit is led by six athletes (one proceeding anonymously) who participated in the 2022 NCAA Swimming and Diving Championship including former Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines, NC State swimmer Kylee Alons, North Carolina swimmer Grace Countie, Virginia Tech swimmer Reka Gyorgy, and Kentucky swimmer Kaitlynn Wheeler. They are joined by thirteen current athletes including Arkansas track-and-field athlete Ainsley Erzen, Kentucky tennis player Ellie Eades, Texas A&M swimmer Ellis Fox, San Jose State volleyball player Brooke Slusser, Cedarville University volleyball player Nanea Merryman, and Roanoke College swimmers Lily Mullens, Carter Satterfield, Katie Blankinship, Susanna Price, Kate Pearson, Julianna Morrow, and Halle Schart.

Defendants in the suit include the NCAA, the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (both as a unit and individually), the Georgia Tech Athletic Association, and Georgia Tech president Angel Cabrera. The National Women's Law Center has also pushed to participate in the lawsuit on behalf of transgender athletes, first as intervenors (denied) and now as unopposed amicus curiae.

(No. 24-cv-01109, N.D. Georgia, Judge Tiffany R. Johnson, filed March 14, 2024)

Description of the Case

A group of female beach volleyball and bowling athletes at Stephen F. Austin University (SFA) filed this lawsuit based on SFA's decision to cut the school's varsity beach volleyball and bowling teams, along with both men's and women's golf. Per the complaint, the plaintiffs were notified of the cuts in a ten-minute Zoom meeting on May 22, 2025. The cuts are effective immediately. The school made the cuts citing budgetary concerns related to the House settlement. However, the plaintiffs allege that SFA was already out of compliance with Title IX and that the cuts only exacerbate that imbalance. The complaint cites SFA's 2022-23 Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) report, which states that women were 62.8% of SFA’s undergraduate population but received only 34.8% of the opportunities to participate in varsity sports.

The complaint raises class action allegations with six representative plaintiffs: beach volleyball rising senior Sophia Myers, bowling rising senior Kara Kay, beach volleyball rising redshirt junior Ryann Allison, beach volleyball rising senior Elaina Amador, and beach volleyball rising senior Berklee Andrews. The plaintiffs also filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction, citing case law stating that "courts have found that the elimination of a women’s team creates irreparable harm when the plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their Title IX claim” since " inherently, the ability to compete in intercollegiate competition is fleeting."

(No. 25-cv-00187, E.D. Texas, Judge Michael J. Truncale, filed June 30, 2025)

Description of the Case

This lawsuit was originally filed by former University of San Francisco baseball players and later joined by additional plaintiffs, alleging a long-standing pattern of abuse by coaching staff. The complaint accuses former head coach Nino Giarratano and assistant coach Troy Nakamura of engaging in demeaning, sexualized, and abusive conduct, including forced nudity, sexually humiliating drills, and verbal harassment. The plaintiffs assert that the university failed to act on numerous red flags, including Title IX complaints and a toxic team culture, thereby violating its duty to protect student-athletes from abuse and discrimination. In their most recent amended complaint (which removes breach of contract claims and prayer for injunctive relief alleged in the original complaints), the plaintiffs allege violations of Title IX for gender-based discrimination, violations of Title IX for retaliation, negligent supervision and retention of the two coaches, educational discrimination under California law (Cal. Educ. Code § 66270), violation of the California Equity in Higher Education Act, gross negligence, negligence, negligent failure to warn, train, or educate, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The initial March 2022 complaint included only three athletes as representative plaintiffs in a class action complaint. The complaint also included the NCAA as a defendant. A first amended complaint filed in July 2022 expanded the number of representative plaintiffs to 12, and a second amended complaint filed in February 2023 added two additional representative plaintiffs for a total of 14. The NCAA was dismissed from the lawsuit without prejudice on January 4, 2023, for lack of personal jurisdiction. After the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in March 2025, a second lawsuit was filed with five new plaintiffs making similar allegations.

(Does 1-14: No. 22-cv-1559, N.D. California, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, filed March 11, 2025)

(Does 15-19: No. 25-cv-05311, N.D. California, Judge Trina L. Thompson, filed June 25, 2025)

Description of the Case

A group of former Ivy League female swimmers filed this lawsuit attacking the NCAA and Ivy League's Transgender Eligibility Policies, claiming that the policies are discriminatory towards women and deprive women of equal opportunity in violation of Title IX by allowing transgender women born as males to participate in NCAA women's sports. The plaintiffs in particular focus on the Ivy League allowing former University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas -- a transgender woman -- to compete in the women's 500-yard freestyle event at the 2022 Ivy League Championships and NCAA Division I Swimming and Diving Championship hosted at Harvard.

The lawsuit is led by three athletes who participated in the 2022 NCAA Swimming and Diving Championship: former UPenn swimmer Grace Estabrook, former UPenn swimmer Margot Kaczorowski, and former UPenn Ellen Holmquist.

Defendants in the suit include the Ivy League Council of Presidents, the Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College, the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, and the NCAA.

(No. 25-cv-10281, D. Mass., Judge William G. Young, filed February 4, 2025)

Description of the Case

The University of Oregon varsity beach volleyball and club women's rowing teams allege that the University of Oregon has discriminated against them in providing unequal resources between men's and women's teams on campus. In sum, the plaintiffs have three overarching claims: an equal treatment claim, an equal financial aid claim, and an equal opportunities to participate claim.

Specific to the beach volleyball team, the plaintiffs claim that Oregon has subjected the team to dramatically disparate conditions, including having them play at a public park run by the city of Eugene with a bathroom with no stall doors (due to the city’s concerns about squatters and drug use) and only one small bench as seating for team members and/or spectators with the only available locker room facilities on campus two miles away. Additionally, the team claims that the university has repeatedly broken promises to remedy these conditions by building an on-campus facility. The team has compared these conditions to the array of amenities (including the availability of athletic scholarships) granted to men's teams like Oregon's football team to show that Oregon has not provided equal opportunities as required under Title IX. The beach volleyball team is arguing for increased travel funding, facility access, and NIL support to remedy the claimed disparity.

Similarly, the rowing team claims that Oregon has not provided substantially proportional opportunities between male and female athletes on campus overall, arguing that Oregon should be required to elevate their team to a varsity level to remedy the claimed disparity.

This is a class action lawsuit with classes for the beach volleyball plaintiffs (equal treatment claim, equal financial aid claim) and the rowing plaintiffs (equal opportunities to participate claim).

(No. 23-cv-01806, D. Oregon, Judge Michael J. McShane, filed December 1, 2023)

Description of the Case

A group of female lacrosse athletes at California State University, Fresno (Fresno State) filed this Title IX lawsuit against their school after the school eliminated its men's wrestling, men's tennis, and women's lacrosse teams after the 2020-21 seasons. The suit argues that Fresno State has failed to provide female students effective accommodations by not providing equal opportunities to participate in varsity athletics and by failing to provide female athletes with an equal allocation of financial aid and other benefits.

This is a class action lawsuit involving all current, present, and future female athletes at Fresno State who did not recieve proportional athletic aid and treatment and benefits. Representative lead plaintiffs are former Fresno State lacrosse players Taylor Anders, Hennessey Evans, Abbigayle Roberts, Megan Walaitis, Tara Weir, and Courtney Walburger.

(Original District Court Filing: No. 21-cv-00179, E.D. Cal, Senior District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, filed February 12, 2021)

(Appeal of Denial of Class Certification: No. 23-15265, 3d Cir., Judges Gould, Koh, and Desai, filed February 8, 2022, closed August 2, 2024)

Description of the Case

In this case, several current and former women's volleyball players (along with one former coach) are challenging the Mountain West Conference's transgender inclusion policy. They initially argued that a trans woman athlete who plays for San Jose State's women's volleyball team should have been declared ineligible to travel with and complete with the team at the Mountain West Conference Volleyball Championships on November 27-30, 2024, but this request for relief was denied. Some San Jose State plaintiffs also claim that the policy has deprived them of equal opportunities under Title IX because they have lost opportunities to play due to the trans woman's allowed inclusion. The (non-San Jose State) plaintiffs also claim that they have been illegally retaliated against for their boycotts by being required to forfeit matches against San Jose State. The plaintiffs base their claims on Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and contract theories (fraud and misrepresentation).

Plaintiffs include current San Jose State volleyball player Brooke Slusser, former San Jose State volleyball players Alyssa Sugai and Elle Patterson, current University of Nevada, Reno volleyball players Sia Liilii and Nicanora Clarke, current Utah State volleyball player Kaylie Ray, current University of Wyoming volleyball players Macey Boggs, Sierra Grizzle, and Jordan Sandy, current Boise State volleyball players Katelyn Van Kirk and Kiersten Van Kirk, and San Jose State volleyball associate head coach Melissa Batie-Smoose. They are suing the Mountain West Conference, Mountain West commissioner Gloria Nevarez, San Jose State, two San Jose State athletic department directors, and San Jose State volleyball coach Todd Kress. Utah State University was also granted the right to intervene in the lawsuit as an intervenor-plaintiff after no party objected, but withdrew their complaint in intervention after the Mountain West Tournament. Following the tournament (and on appeal), Slusser (a graduating senior) was replaced as lead plaintiff by Katelyn Van Kirk (a freshman).

(Original District Court Filing: No. 24-cv-03155, D. Colo., Judge S. Kato Crews, filed November 13, 2024)

(Appeal of Denial of Emergency Motion: No. 24-1461, 10th Cir., filed November 25, 2024, voluntarily dismissed May 19, 2025)

Description of the Case

A group of female athletes at San Diego State University (SDSU) filed this Title IX lawsuit against their school arguing that SDSU has failed to provide female athletes on campus proportional athletic aid and proprotional treatment and benefits when compared to male athletes. The suit was filed in part as a response to SDSU cutting the varsity women's rowing team on campus. Additionally, the lawsuit was amended shortly after its initial filing to also include a retaliation claim based on a Zoom call held shortly after thelawsuit was filed where several plaintiffs on the track-and-field team were allegedly admonished for filing the lawsuit and threatened with removal from the team.

This is a class action lawsuit involving all current, present, and future female athletes at SDSU from 2018-19 to the present who did not recieve proportional athletic aid and treatment and benefits. Representative lead plaintiffs are former SDSU rowers Madison Fisk, Raquel Castro, Greta Castrillon, Olivia Petrine, Helen Bauer, Natalie Figueroa, Kamryn Whitworth, Eleanor Davies, Alexa Dietz, and Laura Sulcs and current SDSU track-and-field athletes Carina Clark, Erica Grotegeer, Kaitlin Heri, Aisha Watt, and Sara Absten.

(No. 22-cv-00173, S.D. Cal., Judge Todd W. Robinson, filed February 7, 2022)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff, Christopher Logan, is the former head women's soccer coach at the University of North Dakota (UND). He alleges that he was illegally fired in retaliation for reporting gender-based inequities between the men's and women's athletic facilities on campus. Specifically, he alleeges that the women's soccer field did not meet NCAA-recommended dimensions, presented numerous safety hazards (e.g., significant declines at field edges, a deep embankment near the goal, etc.), lacked proper security and enclosure, and only had two smaller bleachers for spectators and a small shed for a press box. On March 2, 2024, Logan emailed UND administration with these complaints. After the complaints were presumably inadequately addressed, the team filed a formal Title IX complaint in October 2024. Logan then participated in Title IX investigatory meetings throughout October and November until, on November 25, 2024, he was informed that his contract would not be renewed when it was set to expire on December 31, 2024. Senior Associate Athletic Director Liz Jarnigan allegedly told a current UND coach that the Title IX complaint influenced UND's decision not to renew Logan's contract.

Logan has alleged retaliation in violation of Title IX, a violation of North Dakota's state Whistleblower Act. He seeks a declaratory judgment that UND's conduct violated Title IX, compensatory damages for economic and non-economic (emotional/reputational) losses, injunctive relief requiring UND to be better trained on and comply with Title IX, and attorneys fees.

(No. 25-cv-00085, D. North Dakota, filed April 16, 2025)

Description of the Case

Two female athletes at the University of Kentucky filed this Title IX and Fourteenth Amendment lawsuit alleging that Kentucky has failed to provide equitable varsity athletic opportunites for women. The plaintiffs seek to force Kentucky to add women's varsity teams in lacrosse, field hockey, and/or in equestrian sports to comply with Title IX.

This is a class action lawsuit involving all current, present, and future female athletes at Kentucky who did not recieve proportional athletic aid and treatment and benefits. The lead plaintiffs are two former UK students who expressed interest in one or more of the three sports: Elizabeth Niblock and Ala Hassan.

(Appeal: No. 24-6060, 6th Circuit, filed November 26, 2024)

(Original Filing: No. 19-cv-00394, Judge Karen Caldwell, E.D. Ky., filed September 25, 2019)

Description of the Case

In this case, current University of North Carolina tennis player Reese Brantmeier and current Texas tennis player Maya Joint have challenged the NCAA's ban on individual athletes' ability to receive prize money for outside athletic competitions beyond "actual and necessary" expenses. As an example, Brantmeier claims in her complaint that she was forced to forfeit over $35,000 in prize money earned during the 2021 U.S. Open and other tournaments in 2021 and that the NCAA refused to certify her as an amateur for the 2022-23 school year, challenging some of her submitted expenses (e.g., a scanner to track and catalog receipts and a hotel room shared with her mother) as "unnecessary." She claims that under antitrust law there is no longer any justification for the restriction given that athletes in other sports like football and basketball are able to earn money from the participation in their sports through NIL deals.

This is a class action lawsuit seeking both injunctive relief (an injunction against the rule) and money damages. As of the filing of the amended complaint in November 2024 and the filing of a renewed motion for class certification in February 2025, the defined class includes all current and former (within the five year statute of limitations) Division I tennis athletes, rather than the originally pled class of all Division I individual sport athletes. The original representative plaintiff is University of North Carolina tennis player Reese Brantmeier. Brantmeier was joined in the lawsuit by current Texas tennis player Maya Joint in the amended complaint. The original case also included a declaration by Nebraska bowler Jillian Martin, but she was not included in the more narrow drawing of the case in the amended complaint.

On July 28, 2025, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, defining the two classes as: (1) All persons who, at any time between March 19, 2020, and the date of judgment in this action, (i) competed in NCAA Division I Tennis, or (ii) were ineligible to compete in NCAA Division I Tennis due to the Prize Money Rules (injunctive class); (2) All persons who, at any time between March 19, 2020, and the date of judgment in this matter, have voluntarily forfeited Prize Money earned in a tennis tournament, and (i) have competed in NCAA Division I Tennis, or (ii) have submitted information to the NCAA Eligibility Center (damages class).

(No. 24-cv-00238, M.D.N.C., Judge Catherine C. Eagles, filed March 18, 2024)

Description of the Case

The plaintiffs in this case challenge NCAA Bylaw 11.01.6, which provides for restrictions on the compensation that can be provided to so-called volunteer coaches that exist as assistant coaches in sports other than football and basketball. The plaintiffs claim that but for the restriction they would have earned minimum wage and other benefits that are ordinarily provided to other coaches that do not have a volunteer designation. They claim the arrangement thus violates antitrust law.

This is a class action lawsuit seeking to include all those who have worked as volunteer coaches for Division I programs within the statute of limitations. The Smart litigation focuses on baseball coaches, while Colon includes all other non-football and basketball sports. The representative lead plaintiffs for Smart are former Arkansas baseball coach Taylor Smart and former UC Davis baseball coach Michael Hacker. The representative lead plaintiffs for Colon are former Arizona State track and field coach Shannon Ray, current San Jose State softball coach Khala Taylor, former Virginia swimming and diving coach Peter Robinson, former Pittsburgh softball coach Katherine Sebbane, and former Fresno State women's volleyball coach Rudy Barajas. (Former Fresno State wrestling coach Joseph Colon, a representative lead plaintiff in that cases original filing, has since been dropped from the suit) The two cases were consolidated into one joint action, but the cases will be separated as the parties to Smart have filed notice that they have reached a settlement.

Description of the Case

The plaintiffs in this case are challenging the Ivy League's longstanding practice of forbidding the grant of athlete scholarships to athletes playing for its member institutions, claiming that this practice constitutes a price fixing conspiracy violative of antitrust law. A key issue in this case is whether individual athletic conferences on their own can be seen as controlling a market on their own, or whether their competition with other conferences is sufficient to show that athletes have other options to sell their labor as college athletes.

(Current Appeal: No. 24-02826, 2nd Circuit, filed October 22, 2024)

(Original Filing: No. 23-cv-00305, D. Conn., Judge Alvin W. Thompson, filed March 7, 2023)

Description of the Case

This lawsuit challenges the NCAA's bylaws that make college athletes who play in the semipro junior league Canadian Hockey League (CHL) ineligible for NCAA competition. Specifically, the suit claims that the combination of NCAA bylaws 12.2.3.2 ("An individual shall not be eligible for intercollegiate athletics in a sport if the individual ever competed on a professional team"), 12.2.3.2.1 ("In sports other than men’s ice hockey and skiing, before initial full-time collegiate enrollment, an individual may compete on a professional team...") and 12.2.3.2.3 ("Ice hockey teams in the United States and Canada, classified by the Canadian Hockey Association as major junior teams, are considered professional teams under NCAA legislation") constitute an illegal boycott against current and former CHL players.

This is a class action lawsuit with one class that includes "anyone who either (i) played in the CHL at any point between August 12, 2020, and the present, or (ii) attended college at any point between August 12, 2020, and the present after playing in the CHL." The original representative lead plaintiff is Rylan Masterson, a hockey player who played two exhibition games as a sixteeen-year-old in 2022 for the CHL's Windsor Spitfires and was subsequently declared ineligible for Division I NCAA competition. He was joined in an amended complaint by Nicholas Avakyan, a 20-year-old hockey player who played three seasons in the CHL. Avakyan has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction (without Masterson) that seeks to force the NCAA to declare him eligible for NCAA competition immediately.

(No. 24-cv-00754, W.D.N.Y., Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., filed August 12, 2024)

Description of the Case

Two former Seton Hall (SHU) basketball players, Myles Powell and Jasmine Smith, sued the university, former SHU men's basketball coach Kevin Willard, their director of sports medicine Tony Testa, and assistant athletic trainer Deja Craig based on the trainers' handling of their injuries while playing at SHU. Powell claims that after he suffered an ankle injury during his 2019-20 senior season he was allowed to continue playing, exacerbating the injury and causing damage in his knee. When Powell complained about the pain to Testa, Testa gave him injections of pain medication, told him it was a bone bruise, and allowed him to keep playing. However, Powell alleges that in January 2020, Testa mistakenly texted Powell that he had a lateral meniscus tear, intending the text to be sent to Coach Willard instead, but still allowed Powell to continue to play without any additional treatment. During the summer, Powell then consulted with an independent pain management doctor who conducted an MRI and found tear to Powell's lateral meniscus. Powell alleges gross negligence against Testa, Willard, and SHU, claiming that the untreated injury caused him to go from a projected top pick in the NBA draft to being undrafted after teams discovered the injury.

Similarly, during Jasmine Smith's senior season in 2020-21 she sustained an injury to her left knee that left her unable to walk. After two MRIs, Smith was told by Craig that her injury was only a bone bruise that would heal on its own, leading her to stop physical therapy and rejoin the basketball team, having been cleared for full participation. When she complained about pain and swelling during workouts, practices, and games, Smith was told that those symptoms were normal and was given ice and ibuprofen to manage them. Smith then transferred as a graduate student to Loyola Marymount and was diagnosed with a chondral defect based on a new MRI scan taken after she complained of the pain during her entrance physical. She then underwent surgery in August 2021, causing her to miss her final collegiate basketball season and any opportunities to play professionally in Europe. She also alleges gross negligence against Craig, Testa, and SHU.

(Case No. 21-cv-13709, D.N.J., Judge William J. Martini, filed July 15, 2021)

Description of the Case

This lawsuit concerns the upcoming Netflix show (produced by Warner Brothers) called Running Point. Running Point features a basketball team called the "Los Angeles Waves" with colors and branding that Pepperdine (whose mascot is also the "Waves") argues is strikingly similar to their own. As such, Pepperdine has filed this lawsuit against Netflix and Warner Bros for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, false advertising, and related California state laws and seeks injunctive relief preventing Running Point from being released unless the show can be modified to remove the allegedly infringing branding.

(No. 25-cv-01429, C.D. Cal., Judge Cynthia Valenzuela, filed February 20, 2025)

Description of the Case

Former Central Michigan University (CMU) and Rochester Christian University men's basketball player Damarion Bonds filed this lawsuit after he was dismissed from CMU for allegedly providing false information on his Previous Institution Verification Form (PIVF). While at Rochester, Bonds had been the subject of a Title IX investigation for alleged sexual misconduct. According to the complaint, while Bonds denies the allegations he had been forced to sign a sanctions notice memorializing the citation in order to transfer to Henry Ford College for the 2023-24 school year. When he filled out his PIVF to then transfer to CMU for 2024-25, he indicated "No" on a question asking whether he had been expelled, suspended, placed on a probationary period, etc. When CMU's PIVF regarding Bonds came back with a "Yes" on that question, CMU Title IX coordinator Mary Martinez initiated an investigation culminating in a memo where she found Bonds's PIVF response "technically accurate" since he was only dismissed from Rochester's basketball team (instead of from the school as a whole), but still recommended that CMU reevaluation Bonds's eligibility to continue at CMU. After a hearing and an appeal, CMU determined that Bonds had violated the CMU Code and dismissed Bonds from CMU entirely.

Bonds alleges that CMU, Rochester, and individual defendants Scott E. Samuels (VP of Student Life, Admissions, and Marketing and Title IX Coordinator at Rochester), Thomas H. Idema, Jr. (Director of Student Conduct at CMU), and Mary Martinez (Title IX Coordinator and Assistant to the President for the Office of Civil Rights and Institutional Equity at CMU) violated his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and violated Title IX under an erroneous outcome theory of liability (see Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579, 589 (6th Cir. 2018)). He also claims injurious falsehood, negligence, promissory estoppel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He is seeking equitable relief halting his dismissal from CMU along with compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages.

(No. 25-cv-10904, E.D. Michigan, filed March 31, 2025)

Description of the Case

The University of Southern California athletic department has been accused by Sony Music and various record labels of repeatedly infringing on the defendants' copyrighted songs by using them in various videos on social media accounts. According to Sony, there are over 250 videos posted by USC containing their copyrighted music across 30 USC social media pages. One example given in the complaint is the 2024 USC football season hype trailer, which used the song “Like That” by Future, Metro Boomin, and Kendrick Lamar. Sony argues that the violations have been willful, given the required copyright confirmation clickthrough required to post on various social media platforms include TikTok.

(No. 25-cv-02042, S.D.N.Y., Judge Gregory H. Woods, filed March 11, 2025)

Description of the Case

On the heels of failed negotiations to extend a football scheduling agreement between the two conferences from 2024 to 2025, the Pac-12 Conference filed this suit against the Mountain West Conference challening a so-called "poaching fee" contained within the 2024 scheduling agreement contract that requires the Pac-12 to pay the Mountain West for any Mountain West conference members induced to leave the Mountain West for the Pac-12. As the Pac-12 has recruited five Mountain West schools to date into its ranks (Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, and Utah State), the Pac-12 owes $55 million to the Mountain West under this poaching penalty clause. The Pac-12 claims that the clause is anticompetitive in violation of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act and California Cartwright Antitrust Act and constitutes an unenforceable liquidated damages penalty clause, and is seeking a declaratory judgment as such.

(No. 24-cv-06685, N.D. Cal., Judge Susan van Keulen, filed September 24, 2024)

Description of the Case

Vintage Brands is a company that designs apparel based on original designs that evoke the brands of various college football teams (including Penn State) but do not explicitly use their trademarks. Nevertheless, Penn State (along with various other universities) sued Vintage Brands and Sportswear (their manufacturer) for trademark infringment, arguing that the use and sale of art similar to university marks creates a likelihood of consumer confusion.

(No. 21-cv-01091, M.D. Pa., Judge Matthew W. Brann, filed June 21, 2021)

Description of the Case

This lawsuit was filed by a group of homeless disabled veterans against the United States Department of Veterans (VA) Affairs based on the VA's failure to provide adequate housing for those veterans in Los Angeles, CA, which they claim violates § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The VA has argued that they do not have sufficient space to build new housing. However, the plaintiffs have countered that the reason why the VA does not have adequate land for housing is that they have improperly leased portions of their West Los Angeles campus to a private school, an oil company, and -- of interest to those in college sports -- UCLA's baseball team for the purposes of their home field, Jackie Robinson Stadium.

(Original District Court Filing: No. 22-cv-08357, C.D. Cal., Judge David O. Carter, filed November 15, 2022)

(Appeal of Trial Order and Injunction: Nos. 24-6338 & 24-6603, 9th Cir., filed October 17, 2024)

Description of the Case

Prior to their decision to join the Mountain West Conference starting in 2026, Grand Canyon University had previously been committed to join the West Coast Conference. As such, the West Coast Conference filed this breach of contract lawsuit seeking Grand Canyon's payment of both the entrance and withdrawal fees the conference feels they are owed under their original agreement.

(No. 24-cv-08933, N.D. Cal., Judge Charles R. Breyer, filed December 11, 2024)

Description of the Case

Football player Sam Hicks filed this lawsuit seeking an additional year of intercollegiate athletics eligibility to play in the 2025-26 season. After starting college at Southwestern Oklahoma University (where he attend any classes nor did not participate in sports), Hicks played at JUCO Saddleback College (2021-22), Central Michigan (2022-23 and 2023-24), and Abilene Christian (2024-25), and he has been offered $100,000 to transfer to Western Kentucky and play for the Hilltoppers in 2025-26. Unlike the other eligibility cases, Hicks does not allege antitrust issues but instead violates the Due Process Clause by treating him differently than other athletes, namely Jett Elad. He also claims that the NCAA refused to consider his waiver request unless they were given proof that he has filed a lawsuit first.

(No. 25-cv-00093, W.D. Kentucky, filed July 14, 2025)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Corey Coley, Jr., a football player for North Carolina State University (NC State) who exhausted his Division I eligibility in 2024-25. He files this antitrust lawsuit seeking an additional year of eligiblity. Coley is arguing in part that (1) the NCAA didn't give him proper credit for his injuries in denying his hardship waiver; (2) the NCAA's definition of a "season" is arbitrary; and (3) the four-year limit is arbitrary given various exceptions like the COVID waiver.

While Coley's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, the NCAA filed an answer, moving the case into discovery and towards a potential trial. The NCAA has pled five affirmative defenses: (1) that Coleys' claims challenge non-commercial activity not subject to antitrust law; (2) that Coley fails to allege a proper relevant product and geographic market; (3) that Coley's claims are barred because the NCAA's actions were procompetitive; (4) Coley's claims are barred because the NCAA's actions constituted bona fide business competition and were ancillary to the pursuit of its own legitimate business and economic interests; and (5) Coley has not suffered an actual and cognizable antitrust injury.

(No. 25-cv-00098, E.D. North Carolina, Judge James C. Dever, filed February 21, 2025)

Description of the Case

University of Montana basketball player Kai Johnson filed this lawsuit challenging the NCAA's "Four Seasons in Five Years" eligibility rules. In a manner similar to Nyzier Fourqurean in Fourqurean v. NCAA, Johnson seeks injunctive relief stopping the NCAA from enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.8.1 (the "Five-Year Rule") against him to allow him to play an additional year. He claims that at least one of his first two years at NCAA Division II Western Washington (where he played in 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24) should not be counted against him, given that (1) the 2020-21 season was canceled due to COVID; and (2) his personal difficulties during his 2021-22 year following COVID. He also points to the fact that Division II does not offer the same economic and developmental opportunities as Division I. He wishes to stay in school to take advantage of NIL opportunities and House settlement revenue sharing, which he estimates at a minimum of $100,00 for the 2025-26 school year.

(No. 25-cv-00060, D. Montana, Magistrate Judge Kathleen L. DeSoto, filed April 25, 2025)

Description of the Case

This case is an antitrust challenge against the NCAA and "Power Five" Conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and Pac-12) challenging the NCAA's restrictions on the number of athletic scholarships that can be offered per team. Specifically, the litigatin attacks NCAA Bylaws 15.5.3, 15.5.4 (baseball) and 15.5.7 (hockey) and the scholarship limits placed on teams playing those two sports at the Division I level.

This is a class action lawsuit with one plaintiff class: All persons recieved a partial athletic scholarship in baseball or hockey who is or was a member of one of the Power Five Conferences or Notre Dame starting at the beginning of the statute of limitations period (as to be defined by the court). The representative lead plaintiff is former Texas Christian baseball player Riley Cornelio.

(No. 24-cv-02178, D. Colo., Judge Daniel D. Domenico, filed August 6, 2024)

Description of the Case

College of Charleston basketball player Ante Brzovic filed this lawsuit challenging the NCAA's "Four Seasons in Five Years" eligibility rules. In a manner similar to Nyzier Fourqurean in Fourqurean v. NCAA, Brzovic seeks immediate injunctive relief stopping the NCAA from enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.8.1 (the "Five-Year Rule") against him to allow him to play an additional year. He claims that his two years (2020-21, 2021-22) at NCAA Division II Southeastern Oklahoma State should not be counted against him, given his personal difficulties during that year and the fact that Division II does not offer the same economic and developmental opportunities as Division I. He wishes to stay in school to pursue his master's degree and take advantage of NIL opportunities and House settlement revenue sharing, which he estimates at a minimum of $1 million for the 2025-26 school year.

(No. 25-cv-02885, D. South Carolina, Judge David C. Norton, filed April 6, 2025)

Description of the Case

The state attorneys general of Ohio, Colorado, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA arguing that NCAA Bylaws 13.5.5.1 (the Transfer Eligibility Rule) and 12.11.4.2 (the Rule of Restitution) are illegal in the way that they prohibit athletes from transfering between schools without penalty. In an amended complaint, the plaintiff states were joined by the attorneys general of Virginia, Washington DC, Minnesota, Mississippi, and the United States.

(No. 23-cv-00100, N.D. W.Va., filed December 7, 2023)

Description of the Case

University of North Carolina football player JJ Jones and Duke football player Cameron Bergeron (Jones v. NCAA) and Duke University football players Ryan Smith and Tre'Shon Devones (Smith v. NCAA) filed their lawsuits challenging the NCAA's Five-Year Rule under antitrust law. They each seek to play football in the 2025-26 season while they pursue their graduate studies. All four players argue that they should be entitled to an additional year based on the NCAA's medical redshirt year waiver process but they were denied by the NCAA's internal processes. Unlike similar cases, none of the four players previously played in junior college or a lower division of NCAA athletics.

Note: Since this case is a state court case, expect updates to be less regular than other cases.

(Jones v. NCAA: No. 2025CVS3492, N.C. Business Court (Durham County), Judge Matthew T. Houston, filed April 3, 2025)

(Smith v. NCAA: No. 2025CVS3480, N.C. Business Court (Durham County), Judge Matthew T. Houston, filed April 3, 2025)

Description of the Case

This lawsuit was filed by the attorney general of South Dakota and the South Dakota Board of Regents (on behalf of South Dakota State University and the University of South Dakota) challenging the NCAA's plan to pay for the $2.8 billion damages portion of the House settlement. According to the plaintiffs, of the $2.8 billion that the NCAA will pay to athletes in the House settlement, "$1.15 billion will be paid from the NCAA’s reserves and expense reductions while $1.65 billion will be paid 'by reducing disbursements it makes to conferences from its Final Four Men’s Basketball revenues by an average of 20 percent over the next ten years.'" The plaintiffs claim that this is "grossly unfair to non-Power 4 schools", arguing that Power 4 schools "are responsible for 90% (if not 100%) of the damages covered by the settlement" yet are only stuck with "50% or more of the cost." The plaintiffs allege that the plan is "a breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, inequitable and a violation of the NCAA’s rules, bylaws and constitution."

Note: now that this case is in state court, expect updates to be less regular and less developed than for other cases.

(No. 05Civ24-000320, Third Judicial Circuit Court, Brookings County, South Dakota, filed September 10, 2024) (state case)

(No. 24-cv-04189, D. South Dakota, Judge Karen E. Schreier, filed October 9, 2024) (federal case)

Description of the Case

After Michigan State sparked controversy by playing a quiz video on their videoboard at a football game that included a question about the birthday of Adolf Hitler, the owner of the video sued Michigan State, arguing copyright violations, false light invasion, and violations of the Fifth Amendment takings clause.

(No. 24-cv-00825, W.D. Mich., Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou, filed August 9, 2024)

Description of the Case

In this lawsuit filed on the opt-out deadline day for the House settlement, 67 athletes who have opted out of the settlement seek damages for broadcast NIL use by the NCAA and Power Five conferences and an injunction "restraining the NCAA and Conference Defendants from enforcing their unlawful and anticompetitive agreements to restrict the (a) compensation available to Division I student-athletes from the schools, conferences or third parties for their services or NILs; and (b) athletic scholarships available to Division I student-athletes." Notably, the case very clearly seeks to pick up where House v. NCAA left off prior to their settlement, as this complaint is largely copy-and-pasted from the House most recent amended complaint.

The lead plaintiff in this case is former Mississippi State football player Kylin Hill. 69 other athletes joined the case as co-plaintiffs.

(No. 25-cv-01011, N.D. Cal., Judge Rita F. Lin, filed January 31, 2025)

Description of the Case

In this lawsuit filed on the opt-out deadline day for the House settlement, 33 athletes who have opted out of the settlement seek damages pre-2021 restrictions on NIL use by the NCAA and Power Five conferences. This case clearly seeks to pick up where House v. NCAA left off prior to their settlement.

The lead plaintiff in this case is former Kentucky and Western Kentucky basketball player Dontaie Allen. 32 other athletes joined the case as co-plaintiffs.

(No. 25-cv-00014, E.D. Kentucky, filed January 31, 2025)

Description of the Case

The attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia filed this lawsuit challenging the NCAA's NIL rules barring athletes from negotiating NIL deals with collectives and boosters prior to enrollment at an institution. The attorneys general claim that doing so restraints athletes' market power for NIL deals without justification.

Of note, this case has since been joined by the attorneys general of Florida, New York, and the District of Columbia.

(No. 24-CV-00033, E.D. Tenn., Judge Clifton L. Corker, filed January 31, 2024)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Cary Arbolida, a baseball player who recently enrolled at the Kansas State University. In a manner similar to Diego Pavia in Pavia v. NCAA, Arbolida seeks immediate injunctive relief stopping the NCAA from enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.8.1 (the "Five-Year Rule") against him to allow him to play an additional two years (given his three years playing JUCO ball). He claims that he is entitled to similar relief as Pavia given his three years spent at Orange Coast College (2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22) prior to enrolling at the University of Houston (2022-23 and 2023-24), and the University of Tampa (2024-25). Following the Pavia ruling, he was recruited by and transfered to Kansas State and now seeks a waiver to allow him to play in the Spring 2025 and Spring 2026 seasons for Kansas State and take advantage of NIL opportunities, including a pled opportunity worth $50,000.

(No. 25-cv-02079, D. Kansas, Judge John W. Broomes, filed February 14, 2025)

Description of the Case

West Virginia basketball player RaeQuan Battle challenged the NCAA's (since rescinded) transfer policy, claiming that his hardship waiver that would have allowed his second transfer from Montana State to West Virginia was unjustly denied. He claims that the NCAA has violated his state tort and contract rights along with both federal and state antitrust law.

Of Battle's twelve causes of action, one -- his claim that the NCAA applied their policy arbitrarily -- was dismissed as duplicative of his breach of contract claims. His claims to a declaratory judgment and a restraining order have also been dismissed as moot given the NCAA's change in policy since he filed his lawsuit. The rest of his claims remain in the lawsuit.

(No. 23-cv-00101, N.D.W.V., District Judge John Preston Bailey, filed December 8, 2023)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Holly McLean, a golfer who transferred to the University of South Florida (USF) at the start of the Spring 2025 semester after she was told by her coaches at her former institution, the University of Oklahoma, that her scholarship would not be renewed due to the impending roster limits in the House v. NCAA settlement. McLean wishes to compete for USF in the Spring 2025 women's golf season, but is unable due to NCAA Bylaw 14.5.5.2 ("Competition in the Year of Transfer Rule"), which forbids athletes from playing for two institutions in one academic year. USF applied for a waiver on her behalf, but this waiver was denied. As such, McLean filed this lawsuit seeking an order that the NCAA cannot enforce this bylaw against her to prevent her from playing for USF in the Spring 2025 season.

(No. 25-cv-00431, M.D. Florida, Judge Mary S. Scriven, filed February 20, 2025)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Dylan Goldstein, a baseball player who recently enrolled at the University of Georgia. In a manner similar to Diego Pavia in Pavia v. NCAA, Goldstein seeks immediate injunctive relief stopping the NCAA from enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.8.1 (the "Five-Year Rule") against him to allow him to play an additional year (given his two years playing JUCO ball). He claims that he is entitled to similar relief as Pavia given his two years spent at Chipola College (2020 and 2021) prior to enrolling at Florida Atlantic University (2022 and 2023), and the University of Georgia (2024). Following the Pavia ruling, he wishes to play another season for Georgia to take advantage of NIL opportunities and the advantages of playing Division I college baseball.

(No. 25-tc-05000, 25-cv-00027, M.D. Georgia, Judge Tillman E Self, III, filed February 17, 2025)

Description of the Case

In this NLRB case based on a charge by the National College Players Association (NCPA) and litigated by the general counsel's office of the NLRB, the NLRB general counsel claims that the scholarship and non-scholarship walk-on players of the University of Southern California (USC) football and men's and women's basketball teams are employees of Southern Cal, the Pac-12 Conference*, and the NCAA as joint employers. The general counsel bases this claim based on the services provided by the players to the university, conference, and NCAA, and control the three parties collectively assert over "many aspects of the Players’ labor and services," including, for example, "their work hours, the hiring/recruiting process, supervision and discipline, limitations on Players’ income, eligibility requirements, transfer restrictions, mandatory testing requirements, interviews and social media, academics, attire, vehicles, curfews, bed checks, and Name, Image and Likeness limitations."

* Note: The case was brought before USC's transition from the Pac-12 Conference to the Big Ten Conference, so the responding party is still the Pac-12 Conference. The Pac-12 Conference has argued that there is no longer a live controversy against them for this reason, and that claims must now be directed towards the Big Ten, though no such measures have been taken as of this writing.

(No. 31-CA-290326, NLRB Region 31, filed February 8, 2022, charge filed May 18, 2023)

Description of the Case

The College Basketball Players Association has filed a charge against the University of Notre Dame, alleging that the employer has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by classfying college athletes as "student-athletes" rather than employees.

(No. 25-CA-340413, NLRB Region 25, filed April 18, 2024)

Description of the Case

This is a "copycat" lawsuit to Pavia v. NCAA filed by Southern Miss basketball player John Wade III; he also seeks a declaration that the combination of NCAA Bylaw 12.8 (granting four years of eligibility in five years regardless of whether the athlete is playing sports or playing at a non-NCAA school) and NCAA Bylaw 12.02.6 (defining intercollegiate competition as including competition at both four-year and two-year institutions) is illegal under antitrust law. Wade's reasoning is functionally identical to Pavia's, as he is looking for the same relief that Pavia was granted.

(No. 24-cv-00196, S.D. Miss., Judge Taylor B. McNeel, filed December 20, 2024)

Description of the Case

The fifteen members of the Dartmouth College men's basketball team filed a petition with the NLRB seeking to unionize as part of the Service Employees International Union, Local 560. While only statutory employees can unionize under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the athletes argue that the degree of control exercised by Dartmouth over their activities and the benefits derived by Dartmouth from their activities shows that they are employees, rather than mere students participating in an extracurricular activity.

(Nos. 01-RC-325633, 01-CA-348789, NLRB Region 1, filed September 13, 2023)

Description of the Case

Leading up to the filing of a motion for settlement in House v. NCAA, FCS school Houston Christian University filed a motion to intervene in the suit, arguing that the proposed settlement would cause them to breach their fidicuiary duties by causing them to divert funds from academics to athletics. They argued that none of the defendants (i.e., the NCAA) was adequately representing their interests in the case, as the NCAA had simply presented the settlement to them as a "fait accompli."

On July 24, 2024, Judge Wilken denied Houston Christian's motion to intervene, filing that the school had not shown a practical impairment to a claimed interest necessary to establish intervention as a matter of right and had not shown that they could not resolve their dispute within the NCAA's governance structure (or by leaving the NCAA) as necessary for permissive intervention. This appeal followed.

(No. 24-4843, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, filed MMMM DD, YYYY)

Description of the Case

Basketball players Matthew and Ryan Bewley filed suit against the NCAA over the denial of their amateurism certification due to their pre-college participation in Overtime Elite, a private high school that provided athletes (including the Bewleys) with compensation for their NIL and athletic services. The Bewleys claim that the NCAA violated antitrust law by preventing their entry into the college sports labor market without procompetitive justification.

(No. 23-cv-15570, N.D. Illinois, filed November 1, 2023)