Former University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) football player Tatuo Martinson is the latest NCAA athlete to successfully convince a federal district court to enjoin the NCAA from enforcing its “five-year eligibility rule” against a former junior college (JUCO) athlete. Martinson joins Diego Pavia,[1] Jett Elad,[2] Cortez Braham Jr.,[3] and four West Virginia University football players[4] as having prevailed on this issue, in contrast to James Coley Jr.,[5] Jagger Giles,[6] and Jackson Hasz,[7] who had similar efforts rebuffed by the NCAA.
Martinson’s lawsuit challenges the NCAA’s “five-year rule,” which limits athletes to five years to complete four seasons of athletic competition. Notably, time spent playing at a junior college counts against this eligibility, even though JUCOs are not NCAA members.
The decision from Judge Richard F. Boulware II of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada grants a preliminary injunction in favor of Martinson, allowing him to play another season despite the NCAA’s five-year rule. Judge Boulware held that NCAA eligibility restrictions are subject to antitrust scrutiny because they operate within a commercial context, given athletes’ ability to receive compensation, and hence fall within the scope of the Antitrust Act. Judge Boulware departed from Ninth Circuit precedent in O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015), and Supreme Court precedent in National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021), because those analyses did not account for today’s name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation landscape or the fact that NCAA institutions can now directly pay student-athletes. With these changes, the court deemed it “untenable” to characterize NCAA eligibility restrictions as noncommercial, as Division I athletes now participate in a “labor market” and are compensated for their services, transforming the NCAA’s five-year rule from a “true eligibility rule” into a rule limiting commercial activity.
Judge Boulware also found Martinson likely to succeed on the merits of his antitrust claims, accepting the definition of two relevant markets: the input labor market (college athletes) and the output product (college sporting events). The court found that the NCAA exercises “complete monopsony power” over these markets, setting the rules that determine both the price of athletes’ labor and the structure of college sports competitions.
Finally, the court found that Martinson would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted, losing “unparalleled and incalculable career opportunities” by being denied a spot on the football team for the current season.
Judge Boulware’s decision marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battles over NCAA eligibility rules. By recognizing the commercial nature of college athletics in the NIL era, the court has set the stage for further antitrust scrutiny of NCAA regulations. The outcome of Martinson v. NCAA and related cases could reshape the landscape of college sports, expanding opportunities for athletes and challenging the NCAA’s control over eligibility and compensation.
[1] Pavia’s challenge to the NCAA was discussed in a prior episode of Highway to NIL.
[2] Jett Elad’s successful challenge was discussed in prior blog post on NIL Revolution.
[3] See Braham v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, Case No. 3:25-CV-00253-MMD-CSD, 2025 WL 2017162 (D. Nev. July 18, 2025).
[4] The athletes are Jimmori Robinson, Jeffrey Weimer, Tye Edwards, and Justin Harrington. See Robinson v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. 1:25-CV-00075-JPB, Dkt. No. 17 (N.D. W. Va Aug. 20, 2025).
[5] Coley v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. 5:25-CV-98-D, 2025 WL 1616719 (E.D.N.C. June 6, 2025).
[6] Giles v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. 2:25-CV-06454-JVS-KES, 2025 WL 2551093 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2025).
[7] Hasz v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. 8:25CV398, 2025 WL 2083853 (D. Neb. July 24, 2025).
