The National Football League (NFL) requires that players be three years removed from high school before they are eligible for the NFL Draft.[1] This rule was challenged under antitrust law by former Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett in 2004, but ultimately failed before the Second Circuit.[2] The Court held that the eligibility rule was protected by the nonstatutory labor exemption because draft eligibility constitutes a condition of initial employment, and therefore, a mandatory subject of collective bargaining in the NFL.[3] While Clarett closed the most obvious judicial route to eligibility reform for the past two decades, the evolving landscape of collegiate athletics may have created a new avenue for rethinking the NFL’s eligibility restrictions.
How Collegiate Athletics can Disrupt NFL Eligibility
In NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69, 86 (2021), the Supreme Court operated on the uncontested premise that the NCAA exercised “monopsony power” over the market for student-athlete services, thereby enabling it to restrict the quantity of student-athlete labor.[4] This recognition of a distinct market for student-athlete services reframes NCAA athletes not merely as “outsiders” to the NFLPA’s collective-bargaining relationship, as in Clarett, but as participants in a separate labor market of their own. If collegiate athletics is deemed to be a separate labor market (aka collegiate athletes are deemed to be employees), a plaintiff may be able to argue that the NFL and NFLPA are using their collective-bargaining relationship to restrain workers from entering and competing in the NFL’s market. With the Big Ten alone having a $7 billion media rights agreement, and a reported $1.47 billion in revenue for fiscal year 2025, there is little dispute as to the significance of the market in which college athletes now provide their services.[5] While Alston does not overrule Clarett or invalidate the NFL’s eligibility rule, it does change the framework and could force a court to confront the reach of the nonstatutory labor exemption.
Why the NFL Eligibility Rule Should be Changed
Even absent a new legal challenge, this arbitrary rule is worth reconsidering when the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement expires in March of 2031. In a post- House v. NCAA world, we’ve seen collegiate athletes forgo professional sports and choose to be compensated through Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) and Revenue Sharing payments.[6] This change has become so significant that the NCAA recently adopted an age-based eligibility rule that (generally) limits Division I student-athletes to five years of eligibility.[7]
These developments substantially alter the economic circumstances that existed when Clarett was decided. Because collegiate athletes now have the opportunity to remain in school and earn compensation, a less restrictive eligibility rule could allow those exceptional athletes (like Clarett) to test their value in the NFL at a younger age. Similar to the eligibility rules governing the National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Hockey League (NHL), and Major League Baseball (MLB), the NFL and the NFLPA should impose a less restrictive age-based eligibility rule. Doing so would allow for younger athletes to get their first, second, and potentially third professional contracts in the prime of their careers, while others still have the choice to remain in college.
Although the NFL has several justifications for the rule, most notably protecting immature players from injury[8], it should ultimately be the athlete’s decision as to whether or not they should enter the draft. If Maurice Clarett had it his way, he would’ve been drafted at 20 years old. After all, that’s the same exact age as Malik Nabers, Christian Gonzalez, Kyle Pitts, Penei Sewell, Justin Jefferson, Juju Smith-Schuster, and Danielle Hunter (just to name a few) were when they were drafted.[9] If a player possesses the talent and physical attributes of a NFL draft pick, they shouldn’t be forced to wait three years before entering the NFL Draft.[10]
References:
[1] https://operations.nfl.com/calendar-events/nfl-draft/nfl-draft-rules.
[2] https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2024/clarett-v-nfl-age-limits-pro-sports-1234770816/.
[3] Clarett v. NFL, 369 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2004).
[4] “The NCAA accepts that its members collectively enjoy monopsony power in the market for student-athlete services, such that its restraints can (and in fact do) harm competition” NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69, 90 (2021).
[5] https://www.si.com/college-football/power-4-conferences-reveal-revenue-figures; https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34417911/big-ten-completes-7-year-7-billion-media-rights-agreement-fox-cbs-nbc.
[6] House v. NCAA, 545 F. Supp. 3d 804 (N.D. Cal. 2021); In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, 803 F. Supp.3d 959 (N.D. Cal. 2025).
[7] https://www.ncaa.org/division-i-adopts-age-based-eligibility-model/.
[8] Clarett v. NFL, 306 F. Supp. 2d 379, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
[9] (all of whom are Pro Bowlers).
[10] (Three years after high school graduation, to be clear) https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/743292/2019/01/01/age-aint-nothing-but-a-number-why-the-nfl-should-change-its-draft-eligibility-rules/.