Yes, and the dividing line is whether the income can be expected to continue. Standard agency underwriting doesn't apply a blanket three-year rule to all income. Income with no defined end date and a documented history generally needs no continuance documentation at all. Income with a defined expiration date is different: lenders have to document that it will continue for at least three years. A playing contract is exactly that kind of income, and that one distinction splits athletes into two camps. - The star on a long, richly guaranteed deal often skips the conventional route entirely and finances through a private banking relationship, where the lender underwrites the whole balance sheet instead of checking a continuance box. - The role player on a one- or two-year deal frequently can't document three years of continuance, so a standard agency loan is hard to fit. Those borrowers usually land in non-QM programs, which typically want strong credit, a larger down payment, and significant assets in reserve. Outside the few sports where long guaranteed contracts are common, most modern deals are simply too short for the standard rulebook, which is why the assets and the loan structure end up doing more of the work. Specific program requirements change, so confirm current guidelines for any given file.