In this episode of Let’s Talk Legal, Wes Collins discusses the rapidly changing legal landscape surrounding college athletics, NCAA eligibility rules, NIL, revenue sharing, waivers, preliminary injunctions, and the uncertainty facing student athletes who are trying to determine whether they can continue competing.
A changing landscape in college athletics
College athletics has changed significantly in recent years. What was once treated as an amateur system has shifted with NIL, revenue sharing, and litigation involving athletes’ rights to continue playing.
Wes explained that eligibility questions are now moving quickly through courts across the country, with athletes, universities, and the NCAA all responding to changing rules and inconsistent outcomes.
The five years in five issue
The episode focused heavily on the “five years in five” eligibility issue.
Traditionally, college athletes often operated under a framework of having five years to play four seasons. According to the discussion, recent NCAA decisions and waiver rulings have created disputes over whether certain athletes should receive another year of eligibility.
Wes discussed concerns that some athletes in the 2022 class were treated differently from other classes, particularly after prior COVID-related eligibility decisions and other waiver rulings.
Preliminary injunctions and the right to play
Many of these lawsuits are not primarily about money. They are about whether an athlete can play now.
Wes explained that preliminary injunctions are critical because the athletic season is short. For a football player, an injunction lasting only a few months may determine whether the player gets to compete for the entire season.
That timing creates urgency. If a court rules too late, the season may already be over.
Inconsistent NCAA decisions
The discussion also addressed perceived inconsistency in NCAA decisions, including waiver approvals, waiver denials, junior college eligibility issues, medical redshirt issues, professional participation, and whether certain athletes should be allowed to return to college competition.
Wes explained that inconsistency is one of the reasons the NCAA has faced litigation from athletes across multiple states.
Why timing matters
Timing was a major theme throughout the episode.
A ruling entered before a season begins may allow an athlete to compete. A ruling entered after the season may offer little practical benefit, even if the athlete later proves the decision was wrong.
The discussion noted that courts, appeals, stays, and emergency rulings can all affect whether an athlete is eligible from one week to the next.
NIL, revenue sharing, and potential damages
The episode also addressed the financial reality of modern college athletics.
With NIL and revenue sharing, some college athletes may earn substantial compensation while competing. If an athlete is improperly prevented from playing, there may be potential financial consequences beyond the lost season itself.
Wes explained that while some current lawsuits are focused on the right to play, damages claims could arise later if athletes lose meaningful opportunities.
Student athletes and university resources
For younger athletes preparing to enter college sports, Wes noted that many universities have resources available to help student athletes and families understand eligibility questions.
Legal counsel may not be necessary for every athlete entering college athletics. However, complicated disputes involving waiver denials, eligibility rulings, or NCAA litigation may require legal help.
Bottom line
College athletics is in a period of major transition.
NIL, revenue sharing, eligibility waivers, transfer issues, professional participation, and NCAA rule changes have created a fast-moving legal environment for student athletes.
The key issue in many of these cases is timing. For athletes, the question is not just whether they are legally right. It is whether they can get an answer in time to play.
