The NCAA is now trying to persuade a federal prosecutor in Mississippi to stop John Wade III from returning to hockey after completing his five-year registration period after a federal judge in Tennessee restrained the program from preventing Vanderbilt quarterback and former JUCO move Diego Pavia from playing in 2025-26.
Wade filed a lawsuit against the NCAA next month, starting at UC Davis in 2018 and enrolling in Contra Costa College, Northridge, and Stanislaus. Through lawyer L. Clark Hicks, Jr., Wade asserts that registration restrictions imposed by institutions, which are competing corporations that join arms through NCAA rulemaking, offend Part 1 of the Sherman Act. According to Wade, D-1 baseball players ‘ services are the subject of antitrust scrutiny in the appropriate market. Restricting college sports ‘ possibilities through eligibility rules probably denies them the chance to boost” their economic chance, personal development, and well-being with NIL opportunities”. Wade is not on the player’s roster, but he wants a preliminary injunction to stop the NCAA from thwarting his chances to play in the 2024-2019 time.

At stake in Wade v. NCAA is a longstanding principle that, absent a special occasion, school players have five years of registration. NCAA D-1 Bylaw 12.8.1 restrictions eligibility to five years, though there are exceptions for special conditions such as military assistance, religious operations and national epidemics. If the five-year law were eliminated, college athletes may possibly have long careers—akin to professional athletes—provided they remain full-time students at their school.
The NCAA defends the five-year rule as both logical and compliant with antitrust law, as detailed in a memorandum submitted on Thursday and written by attorney J. Cal Mayo, Jr.
The NCAA claims that the limited time window “defines the NCAA by distinguishing its product” from pro sports leagues where there is no set participation time cap ( i .e., an NFL or NBA player can play as long as there is employment for their services as long as there is a market for their labor ). The window also “makes sure” that a “new group of aspiring students” will each year have the same chance to pursue a college degree and compete in D-1 instead of players staying in college and taking roster spots well into their 20s or beyond.

The logic of the five-year rule is questioned, but recent legal and industry developments also suggest that the distinction between “big time” college sports and “professional sports” is waning.
College athletes can use their publicity rights to obtain sponsorship, contracts, and endorsements without breaking eligibility requirements since the NCAA passed an NIL policy in 2021. Even though those arrangements serve more as pay-for-play than NIL, NIL collectives have also paid athletes to attend and remain in colleges. Given that less than 2 % of college athletes will eventually turn professional, they may also begin and end in college.
College sports are only becoming more popular. If U. S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approves the NCAA’s settlement to resolve the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations, participating colleges will directly pay D-I athletes a revenue share reflecting media rights, ticket sales sponsorships and NIL. In addition to being denied a chance to play, these changes could mean that college athletes could lose money and other lucrative opportunities in the same way that professional athletes do. When Chief U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell sided with Pavia, he captured that point of view.
Demographic shifts in higher ed are also relevant. According to a recent study by the Brookings Institution, more and more college students don’t fit the conventional model of graduating from college right after high school and finishing it four years later. Strikingly, in fact,” about 30 % of current college students started their programs in their 20s or later, and more than one-third of undergraduate students are at least 25 years old”. With colleges enrolling more later-in-life students, having athlete classmates who are also later-in-life may seem normal and appropriate. It isn’t as if older college athletes are a new phenomenon. Former pro baseball player Chris Weinke won the Heisman Trophy as a 28-year-old, former high school-to-NBA player J. R. Smith became a college golfer at 35 and former fashion model Phyllis Reffo was a D-1 swimmer as a 50-year-old.

Over the next ten years or so, colleges will also see themselves in the market for more students. During that time, the “enrollment cliff” will take effect. The birth rate of college-age children will decline in the United States as a result of the late 2000s’ Great Recession. As colleges compete for a smaller pool of potential tuition-payers, colleges will also be able to recruit more scholarships and other forms of financial aid, helping those students in a good position to secure their enrollment. In this time, colleges may be more aggressively urging students to stay at the university, including by enrolling in graduate programs where they stay in university housing and purchase meals.
Wade’s attempt to keep playing college sports stems from his collegiate experience. According to Evan Webeck of the Mercury News, Wade first enrolled at UC Davis as a student who stood 5’10′′ and had already graduated from high school with a 3.97 GPA. Although Wade was a member of his school basketball team, his height was ( obviously ) a hindrance to furthering that career. He instead aimed to study mechanical engineering. Wade experienced a significant growth spurt while in college ( he grew 6’4″ ), which increased his chances of playing basketball, as occasionally happens ( see David Robinson ).
In order for Wade to play for a sixth year, Southern Mississippi petitioned the NCAA last year to request an extension of his eligibility waiver. The eligibility staff at the NCAA rejected the waiver. It came to the conclusion that Wade did not meet the requirements for a waiver. Southern Miss appealed, but the NCAA’s Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement upheld the denial.
Wade has failed to provide convincing arguments in the NCAA’s motion to dismiss, contending that the NCAA has failed to provide compelling arguments for extending eligibility for another year. According to the NCAA, Wade” simply contends that the five-year rule is not fair to him” ( p. 14 ). The NCAA contends that Wade is underreporting any “empirical data, expert opinions, or market analysis” that would unreasonably restrain the market for current and upcoming D-1 college basketball players, such as an analysis of consumer impact ( i .e., will fans want to watch college teams with players who have been playing in college for many years ) or on impact of new players who want to combine sports and education.

Wade is not an NBA prospect, but has enjoyed success in college. Wade averaged 12 points and 6 rebounds per game at Stanislaus State (D-II ) and received honorable mention in the conference during what is billed as his junior year in 2023-24. He was also first-team all-conference while playing at Contra College ( JUCO ) years earlier. Wade is undoubtedly talented enough in both basketball and school to be a member of Southern Mississippi’s roster. While playing, media exposure might help Wade land NIL deals.
Wade’s legal attempt to extend his eligibility via challenging Bylaw 12.8 is not a first-of-its kind. DeJuan Clayton, a guard for Manhattan College, was given the opportunity to play his eighth season of college basketball by a New York trial judge last year. If Clayton was sidelined, he might suffer irreparable harm in the form of missed opportunities for NIL and “detrimental residual effects” on his pro basketball chances.
Wade v. NCAA is before U. S. District Judge Taylor B. McNeel, who heard oral arguments from the two sides in Mississippi on Friday. McNeel, a quarterback at Ole Miss in the early 2000s that President Donald Trump nominated for the bench in 2020, indicated he will make a decision at a later time.