A starting SEC quarterback wants to enter the 2027 transfer portal. His school tells him he can’t unless he gives up the benefits tied to a revenue-sharing agreement he already signed.
That is the scenario the NCAA may be enabling with a little-noticed change buried inside its latest rules update.
On Monday, the NCAA announced that the Division I Board of Directors directed the Division I cabinet to move forward with a concept that would allow student-athletes to compete in five athletic seasons over five years. But tucked into that announcement was another notable development, a change related to transfer and tampering enforcement.
Here is the key language from the NCAA’s news release:
“At the request of the Big Ten Conference, the board unanimously adopted a narrow change to rules for the notification-of-transfer process, allowing schools to decline to enter a student-athlete into the Transfer Portal only if the student-athlete agreed to release the school from that requirement as part of a valid settlement-related benefits agreement with the school, for the period of that agreement.”
In effect, the NCAA could create a pathway for schools to use settlement-related benefits agreements to limit when an athlete can enter the portal. That could invite legal scrutiny. Courts have often been skeptical of NCAA rules that restrict athletes’ economic opportunities, and this proposal could be challenged as an attempt to limit player movement in the marketplace.
The first test case is inevitable
If an athlete is blocked from entering the portal and still wants to leave, the next step is unlikely to remain within the NCAA structure. Instead, it would almost certainly move to litigation.
In that scenario, the athlete’s legal team would likely argue that restrictions on transfer portal access would impose an unreasonable restraint on earning potential and seek immediate injunctive relief to permit the athlete to enter the portal.
Whether a court grants that relief is not automatic, but recent NCAA litigation shows a growing willingness among judges to intervene quickly when eligibility or transfer restrictions create immediate economic harm.
That reasoning appeared in the case of Vanderbilt QB Diego Pavia, in which a federal court granted preliminary injunctive relief allowing him to play while litigation proceeded, citing the economic value of playing time in the NIL era.
Ultimately, a system that ties portal access to financial agreements means that when disputes arise, they will not always be settled in conference offices, but will often be decided in courtrooms.
