By Stephanie Barnes
On July 24, 2025, U.S. District Judge Joseph F. Battalion denied college football player Jack Hasz’s request for a fifth season of eligibility (Hasz v. N.C.A.A., 2025). Hasz, a lineman for UNLV, graduated from high school in 2019 and had played for three different colleges and universities. He argued that the time he spent at Iowa Western Community College (IWCC) should not be counted against his eligibility for National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I status.
The NCAA limits its student-athletes to four years of competition within a five-year window in any one sport (McCann, 2025). The five years, otherwise referred to as the five-year clock, begin when a student enrolls in any NCAA member or non-member college or university. Within those five years, an athlete can utilize a “redshirt year,” which allows him/her one season to develop their athletic or academic skills, extend their eligibility, or recover from an injury without it counting towards their four-year eligibility limit (NCSA, 2025).
Hasz’s timeline is as follows:
- 2019-2020 Iowa Western (JC) – did not play – *Redshirt Year* (1)
- 2020-2021 Iowa Western (JC) – played 8 games – COVID-19 – did not count against his eligibility
- 2021-2022 University of Buffalo – played in 4 games (2)
- 2022-2023 University of Buffalo – played in 12 games (3)
- 2023-2024 UNLV – played in 14 games (4)
- 2024-2025 UNLV – played in 14 games (5)
During the 2019-2020 season, Hasz redshirted, meaning he did not participate in any games throughout the entire season. Due to an NCAA blanket pandemic waiver, the 2020-21 season did not count against Hasz’s four years of eligibility (Hasz v. N.C.A.A., 2025). However, his eligibility clock began when he enrolled at IWCC in 2019.
At the conclusion of the 2024-2025 season, Hasz had exhausted his four years of eligibility within the five-year period (Bonderson, 2025). In March 2025, months after his final college game, Hasz applied to the NCAA for an additional year (the “Pavia” waiver), but the waiver was denied. In July 2025, Hasz then sought a preliminary injunction, which would have temporarily allowed him to play another season of NCAA football. However, the U.S. District Court of Omaha also denied his motion.
Hasz maintained that including junior college time in the NCAA’s five-year rule was an unlawful restraint of trade and in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (Hasz v. N.C.A.A., 2025). The Sherman Act is the first antitrust law passed by Congress in 1890. It is a “comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as a rule of trade” (Federal Trade Commission, 2022, p. 1). The Sherman Act, however, does not outlaw all restraints of trade; only those that are deemed unreasonable by the courts are ultimately deemed unlawful.
Providing some context for this case, in December 2024, Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia successfully argued that his time at a junior college should not be counted against the same Division I five-year eligibility restriction (Pavia v. N.C.A.A., 2025). He, too, claimed that the rule violated the Sherman Act (as it restricted education benefits). However, he did not take issue with the NCAA Five-Year Rule (NCAA bylaw 12.8.1); he only claimed that his 2021-2022 season at the New Mexico Military Institute (junior college) should not count toward the five years of eligibility. After the loss in court, the NCAA Board of Directors reluctantly announced a waiver (i.e., the “Pavia waiver”) granting eligibility back to former Junior College (JUCO) athletes who were less than five years out of high school, excluding the season already waived due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Considering the outcome of this case, Hasz’s attorney, Robert W. Futhey, further argued that N.C.A.A. v. Alston (2021), the case that opened the floodgates for Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) compensation, supports the idea that all of the NCAA’s rules could be examined under Section I of the Sherman Act. Unfortunately for Hasz, the Supreme Court of the United States made no such claim. The Court was clear that the Alston decision was only concerned with the applicability of NCAA compensation rules, not with the broader issue of student-athlete eligibility. Ultimately, Judge Batallion ruled that the five-year rule “does not directly regulate commercial activity” (McCann, 2025, p. 2); therefore, the challenged eligibility rule is not a commercial activity and does not fall under antitrust scrutiny. Instead, the rule is only concerned with “who can play college sports and for how long” (McCann, 2025, p. 2).
To that point, Judge Batallion asked NCAA attorney Matt Ralph how the NCAA should be allowed to form guidelines, such as the Five-Year Rule, that ultimately affect other organizations, namely the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) (Hasz v. N.C.A.A., 2025). Ralph responded that the NCAA is a voluntary, self-governing association (not unlike the American Medical Association) with collegiate member schools that should be allowed to make their own rules. Thus, the five-year clock implements a policy that requires athletes also to be students, and outlines who constitutes a college student-athlete.
Moreover, NCAA spokesperson Michelle Hosick stated post-trial that “Attempts to alter the enforcement of foundation eligibility rules – approved and supported by its membership leaders (who themselves are college presidents, athletic directors and college student-athletes) make a shifting environment even more unsettled” (Bonderson, 2025, p. 5).
Futhey claimed he was merely asking the NCAA “not to play fast and loose with its principles (Bonderson, 2025, p. 5). Interestingly, it was Futhey who demanded that the NCAA not only ignore the fact that Hasz graduated in 2019, but also disregard his redshirt year at Iowa Western Community College and instead apply it to his first year at the University of Buffalo—a season in which he played four games. Additionally, Hasz challenged the enforcement of a member-approved, legally binding NCAA bylaw.
Although there were moments when Judge Batallion was not particularly impressed with some of the defendant’s arguments, he appeared particularly annoyed by plaintiff counsel’s colorful depiction of their client’s distressful situation. First, aside from the fact that Hasz’s five-year clock has passed, Judge Batallion stated that in a preliminary injunction motion, the defendant needed to prove “irreparable harm” (Hasz v. N.C.A.A., 2025). Possible or potential future NIL opportunities and earnings do not automatically constitute irreparable harm. Second, Hasz claimed that by not playing another year of college football, he would, to the detriment of his mental health, miss out on the chance of a possible or potential (those two words again) opportunity to play in the National Football League (NFL). Without mincing words, Judge Batallion stated, “There is no evidence of Hasz being scouted for the NFL [and thus] this harm remains too speculative to warrant an injunction” (Hasz v. NCAA, 2025, p. 12). In other words, nice try.
Finally, in spectacular fashion, Judge Batallion made it clear that Jack Hasz could not argue both sides to win his case. Judge Batallion eloquently stated, ““To the extent Hasz tries to cast this as a hysterical slippery slope argument and urges the court to focus only on the five-year rule as it applies to him, this undermines his argument that the rule is, in fact, commercial…either the five-year rule has larger market impact which affect him, or it is harmful only in his specific, narrow situation, but Hasz cannot have it both ways” (Hasz v. N.C.A.A., 2025, p. 12).
Wanting to play in Division I athletics, being able to play in Division I athletics, and playing in Division I athletics are entirely different things. In 2019, Jack Hasz wanted to play Division I football, but at that time, he was simply not good enough. After working diligently for two years, he finally achieved his dream of playing Division I football. In fact, he became so successful that he transferred and became a starter on a top-tier Division I team for two more seasons. This success, however, does not give him permission or the right to compete at that level in perpetuity. There is a time for everything, and Mr. Hasz’s time was up. He had exhausted his eligibility, and rather than accepting this harsh reality, he chose to demonize the very organization that had allowed him the opportunity to make his dreams come true. It is time for Mr. Hasz to find a new dream.
Stephanie Barnes is presently pursuing her Ph.D. in Sports Management at Troy University. She holds two master’s degrees: one in Exercise Science from Auburn and another in Sport Management from Liberty University. She is also a former Division I swimmer at Auburn University and a professional swimming coach.
References
Bonderson, A. (2025, July 24). Creighton Prep graduate suing the NCAA over eligibility regulations. Nebraska Public Media. https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/creighton-prep-graduate-suing-the-ncaa-over-eligibility-regulations/
Federal Trade Commission. (2022, March 4). The antitrust laws. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws
Hasz v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 25–398 (D. Neb. July 24, 2025
McCann, M. (2025, July 27). UNLV lineman denied bid for fifth season in Antitrust Decision. Sportico.com. https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2025/jack-hasz-ncaa-lawsuit-ruling-1234864502/
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021)
NCSA College Recruiting. (2025, October 1). What is a redshirt? What is a redshirt freshman? https://www.ncsasports.org/what-is-a-redshirt-freshman#:~:text=A%20major%20con%20of%20being,is%20redshirting%20as%20a%20freshman?
Pavia v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 24-6153 (6th Cir. Oct. 1, 2025)
