The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday joined a multi-state lawsuit challenging the NCAA's transfer eligibility rules, particularly regarding multiple transfers that require a one-year sitout before returning to competition.
The original lawsuit, filed in December in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, was filed by attorneys general from seven states, led by Ohio. It was argued that the NCAA's Multi-Time Transfer Rule constituted an unlawful restriction on college athletes under the Sherman Antitrust Act by limiting athletes' ability to use their name, image and likeness (NIL). sell and control their training. The DOJ was joined Thursday by attorneys general from Minnesota, Mississippi, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
“There is strength in numbers,” Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said in a statement. “This case would never have occurred if many players had not been excluded by the NCAA's arbitrary and unfair rules. We are fighting for better competition and long-term change.”
The lawsuit first obtained an injunction granting immediate eligibility in December to all NCAA college athletes who were unable to play in a residency year due to multiple transfer requirements. This decision resulted in an interim liaison agreement between the NCAA, the plaintiffs, and the court that granted immediate eligibility to athletes on the 2023–24 academic calendar, as well as any fall 2024–25 athletes who transfer multiple times before the end of the calendar 2023-24. For example, if a multiple football transfer player transfers to a new school before the end of the 2023-24 school year, he would be immediately eligible to play at the new school for the 2024 football season.
The additions of the DOJ and four new attorneys general signal that the lawsuit is still pushing for a permanent rule change by the NCAA or a court order that would replace the NCAA rule. In January 2021, the DOJ sent a memo to the NCAA, then led by former President Mark Emmert, raising concerns about the NCAA's eligibility rules and NIL policies. Despite recent changes the NCAA has made, including allowing zero revenue and implementing a one-time, penalty-free transfer, the DOJ's continued involvement suggests the organization hasn't gone far enough.
This lawsuit is one of many the NCAA is currently facing on multiple fronts, and it was filed the same month that current President Charlie Baker introduced a Division I division proposal that would allow the schools to do so to directly compensate their athletes. This is all part of the NCAA's ongoing push for an antitrust exemption from Congress. This issue was indirectly addressed on Thursday at the 11th NIL-related congressional hearing in Washington DC
“I think in the end we're going to need some federal support, even if it's limited protection,” Baker said during the hearing. “Otherwise, one of the things I've learned in my short time here is that if a member doesn't like the rule he made, it's like a federal case the next day. People are starting to spend money on lawyers and I don’t really see how that benefits anyone.”
(Photo: Kevin C. Cox / Getty Images)