Of all of them, I would of thought transfer rules would be pretty straightforward for NCAA to win. It is not a right to be able to play college sports and NCAA determines eligibility rules for intercollegiate sports for students. Transfer rule doesn't stop players from NIL. And, there's good reason academically to inhibit widespread transfers since it can negatively impact progress towards graduation. If the NCAA loses, then the question I would have is why adhere to 4 years of eligibility since that's a rule too. After all, they went outside the norm and granted some a 5th year for COVID. The others look to be an uphill climb to me. But, I am no lawyer (obviously).
If the NCAA had antitrust protection you would be right. But telling a player he can't play for a year violates the Sherman Act by not allowing a player to transfer and make NIL money. It prohibits the players from participating in free commerce. NCAA Transfer Rule Challenged by States as Anti-Competitive (1)
I don't see these as the same. NIL is separate from school athletics. Nothing is stopping players from transferring to a new school and signing an NIL contract even though they may be ineligible to play until the follow-on season. Heck, their NIL is supposed to be separate from the school anyway but we know it is not being used that way. If they had bad grades and were academically ineligible, would it still be anti trust? How about playing time? Can they sue the school for not giving them the exposure so they can maximize NIL? Where do you stop?
Next we will hear how admissions standards and requirements for remaining academically eligible violate anti-trust laws.
However, the argument that a player "must be allowed to transfer" in order to participate in the NIL turkeyshoot completely exposes the falsehood that the compensation is due to NIL in the first place. If player X could get more NIL money by transferring from institution Y to institution Z, then its not his Name, Image, or Likeness that is being compensated for since none of those things change based on one's location. It's unabashed pay for play, and that might be bit more of a difficult sell in that lawsuit.
