Legal Memo Reports | The Legal Edge: NIL
December 24, 2025
A Quick Welcome
Welcome to today’s Legal Memo Reports. While the legal world has been focused on the headlines of the House settlement, a smaller (but potentially more explosive) case is brewing in an Iowa federal court.
I’ve recently come across Ortega v. NCAA closely because it challenges something we’ve long taken for granted: the NCAA’s "Five-Year Clock." In today’s lead memo, I’m digging into what I believe is the real story here, a question of retroactive jurisdiction.
Can a private organization penalize an athlete for a life they lived before they even knew the NCAA existed? Let’s get into the details of why this case could rewrite the rules for international recruitment.
[IMPORTANT NOTICE]: This newsletter provides general educational insights. Please see the full legal Disclaimer at the bottom of this email before acting on any information.
A federal court in Iowa recently denied an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in the case of Reineri Andreu Ortega v. NCAA. While the court’s denial was based on procedural grounds rather than the merits of the case, the underlying lawsuit poses a significant threat to the NCAA’s "Five-Year Eligibility Clock." The case explores whether the NCAA can legally "reach back" to regulate an athlete’s life before they were ever part of the NCAA system.
Case Background
Reineri Andreu Ortega, an elite wrestler from Cuba, enrolled at Iowa State University in 2023. The NCAA declared him ineligible, claiming his five-year eligibility clock began in 2016 when he enrolled at a university in Cuba—an institution that offered no intercollegiate athletics.
Under NCAA Bylaw 12.6, the "clock" starts the moment a student enrolls full-time at any collegiate institution. Because of this, the NCAA argues Ortega’s eligibility expired before he even stepped foot on an American campus.
The Legal Perspective: “Constructive Jurisdiction”
The most striking element of this case is the question of regulatory authority. If the NCAA prevails, it effectively asserts the power to govern individuals who are not yet under its jurisdiction.
The "Retroactive" Penalty
The core of the issue is that Ortega is being penalized for actions taken in 2016—years before he entered the American labor market or agreed to NCAA terms.
The Jurisdictional Gap: In 2016, Ortega had no contractual or legal relationship with the NCAA.
The "Non-Competitor" Conflict: Because the Cuban university had no athletic program, Ortega could not have gained a "competitive advantage" during those years.
By applying the clock to these non-athletic years, the NCAA is essentially enforcing its rules "retroactively." In an antitrust context, this can be framed as an unreasonable restraint of trade: the NCAA is using its monopoly power to block "labor" (athletes) from entering the market based on life choices made entirely outside the NCAA's sphere of influence.
Key Arguments and Status
Antitrust Theory: Ortega argues the rule is a horizontal restraint (group boycott) among member schools to limit competition for athlete services and NIL opportunities.
The Rule of Restitution: Ortega is also challenging the rule that allows the NCAA to punish schools if a court order allowing him to play is later overturned. He argues this rule "chills" athletes from seeking their day in court.
Current Status: The court denied the immediate ex parte TRO because it wanted to hear the NCAA’s side first. However, the Preliminary Injunction hearing remains live. This means the court has yet to rule on the actual merits of Ortega’s antitrust claims.
Why This Matters
This case signals a shift in how courts view eligibility. In the post-Alston and post-House settlement era, eligibility is no longer just an "academic" rule; it is a commercial gateway.
If the court sides with Ortega, the NCAA may lose its ability to start "clocks" for international students or late-enrollees who attended non-athletic institutions. This would force a total reimagining of how the NCAA defines the "career" of a modern, college athlete.
Looking Ahead
The next phase of this case will be the NCAA's formal response to the preliminary injunction request. We will be watching closely to see if the court views the "Five-Year Clock" as a necessary academic tool or an illegal barrier to entry.
Case Filings
Next Steps: Resources to Stay Compliant
To navigate the evolving state laws and enforcement risks detailed above, use these quick-reference compliance tools:
Compliance Trackers
“50-State NIL Law Tracker”: Use this to quickly verify prohibited categories (like gambling or alcohol) and institutional involvement rules for every state where your athletes compete or your deals originate.
“Agent Registration State Tracker”: Instantly check the Agent Registration Req.? column for every state where you plan to conduct business. This is your primary defense against having contracts declared void due to non-compliance.
"NIL Compliance Awareness Quiz": A quick quiz designed to test your foundational knowledge on key NIL concepts like "pay-for-play" and disclosure rules.
Advisor Tools
“NIL Advisor Checklist”: A step-by-step checklist for agents and advisors to ensure ethical and legal compliance during client intake and contract negotiation.
“5 Essential Questions for Your NIL Advisor”: A critical guide for athletes and parents to perform necessary due diligence before engaging an agent or financial advisor.
Disclaimer: This newsletter provides educational insights and general information related to the legal side of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL). It does not constitute legal, financial, or professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such. This content is for informational purposes only, and you should always consult with a qualified professionals for advice tailored to your specific situation.
NIL laws are constantly evolving, and the information provided might not be the most current at all times.