On Monday night, Colorado district court Judge Charlotte Sweeney denied the NCAA’s motion to stay the injunction that allowed all athletes who started college in 2022—but who had already completed four years of eligibility—a fifth year.
It’s the first loss for the NCAA in an appeal process to get the ruling, which made thousands of athletes potentially eligible overnight, overturned.
The case, first filed in July, resulted from the NCAA’s June decision to implement a new “age-based” eligibility policy. Players would now receive five years to complete up to five seasons of eligibility (rather than four seasons), starting on their 19th birthday or when they enrolled in college—whichever came first. But athletes began to challenge the rule because the NCAA said players who began college in 2022, but have completed four years of eligibility by the end of this past school year, would not be grandfathered into the fifth year policy.
Sweeney’s injunction, given that it was born from a proposed class action in federal court, applied to all eligible athletes across the country. However, at the NCAA’s request, she clarified that the NCAA’s other rules, including roster and revenue-sharing limits, professional eligibility restrictions, and the “ghost transfer rule,” still apply.
For the past week, the college sports world has been thrown into chaos, as coaches, agents, players and NIL operators work to figure out how they can gain an advantage amid the new eligibility rules. Meanwhile, the NCAA has decided to fight the ruling, rather than adjust its policy.
“We are working to restore the status quo as soon as possible, because the status quo represented the considered judgement of the membership about what was best for all student-athletes, including the many thousands already on campus who are just starting their college athletics careers,” NCAA chief legal officer Scott Bearby wrote in a memo to members Aug. 4.
The motion that Sweeney ruled on Monday was part of that process. The NCAA had asked the judge to pause the injunction while the Tenth Circuit winds through the appeal process for the full ruling. That would have forced colleges to return to the status quo before the ruling (when the high school class of 2022 wasn’t eligible for a fifth year) until the appeal process concluded—which could take weeks, if not months. Among its arguments was that players would not face “irreparable harm” if the injunction was postponed during the appeals process.
Sweeney responded: “Nonsense. The Court rejected this argument in its preliminary injunction order and does so again here.”
The NCAA has also asked the appeals court to overturn the ruling altogether. In the meantime, however, it also asked the appeals court to do what Judge Sweeney declined to do Monday night: pause the injunction until the appeal is decided.
Now, the college sports world will wait to see whether the Tenth Circuit will hear the NCAA’s appeal of the injunction.
