Thousands of athletes from the freshman class of 2022 won’t be eligible for a fifth year of NCAA sports—for the time being, according to a new federal court ruling.
On Friday, the Tenth Circuit Court ruled to stay the eligibility injunction granted on July 31 by Colorado district court judge Charlotte Sweeney, which allowed a fifth year of eligibility for players who entered college in 2022 but who had already completed four years of eligibility. Now, their extra year of eligibility has been temporarily suspended until the court reaches a final decision on the appeal, which could take weeks or months.
The decision will mostly affect fall sports athletes, who had just a few weeks to find a roster spot for this upcoming season. Several football players across the country have already done so. Now, they’ll be sidelined at least until the appeals court rules.
“The Tenth Circuit’s stay is a temporary procedural ruling, not a decision on the merits of the athletes’ antitrust claims or their right to recover treble damages if they are not allowed to compete this year,” plaintiff attorney Rob Shelquist said in a statement to Front Office Sports. He added that not all three of the judges involved agreed with the ruling: “We are exploring every available option given the split in the panel’s ruling and remain committed to fighting for these college athletes whose opportunities and eligibility have been unfairly restricted.”
That doesn’t mean there won’t be any players from the freshman class of 2022 on fall sports rosters. Players who filed their own lawsuits in state court will still be eligible if their requisite state court judges grant them injunctions to play. That includes the 16 football players who participated in NFL preseason activities, but who a Louisiana judge ruled can now go back to college.
It’s yet another stunning twist in the ongoing saga of eligibility rules for players from the 2022 freshman class.
In a memo to members Friday, NCAA Chief Legal Officer Scott Bearby confirmed that the NCAA rules will return to the “status quo” for now, but clarified schools won’t be punished for adding players to their rosters after the original injunction—provided they’re now sidelined. “Institutions will not have violations for any class members who were allowed to compete consistent with the scope of the Wisne injunction prior to the stay being granted, and those former student-athletes are no longer eligible under the Wisne injunction.”
Eligibility Disputes
The legal dispute began in June, when the NCAA voted to implement an “age-based” eligibility policy that would allow players five years to complete five seasons of eligibility (instead of the previous four) starting on their 19th birthday or when they began college—whichever came first. The policy was supposed to simplify the previous eligibility rules and halt the flood of lawsuits challenging the eligibility policy.
Instead, it launched a new string of lawsuits filed by players from the freshman class of 2022 who had already exhausted four years of eligibility because the NCAA refused to grandfather them into the new policy and grant them a fifth year.
Some state lawsuits were initially successful, but they applied only to the specific players who signed onto those lawsuits. The Colorado case—a proposed class action in federal court—asked for an injunction applying to all Division I athletes; Judge Sweeney granted that injunction on July 31. (It did have restrictions, however: Sweeney clarified the NCAA could still enforce roster and revenue-sharing caps, professional participation eligibility restrictions, and the “ghost transfer” rule.)
Instead of changing its policy, the NCAA has vowed to fight all the injunctions, whether state or federal.
Another case where it has found a modicum of success: the first Class of 2022 lawsuit filed by men’s and women’s basketball players in Ohio. Earlier this week, the state appeals court granted a stay of the original injunction. The stay has created a complex situation for the plaintiffs, whose newfound eligibility through this case was temporarily paused but who still maintained eligibility through the federal Colorado case. Now, the Colorado case has been paused as well.
“The NCAA argued and the Ohio Court of Appeals agreed the injunction harms the thousands of college athletes and member schools across Division I who are playing by the rules,” the NCAA said in a statement regarding the Ohio case. “We appreciate the court’s recognition of the harm caused by the injunction and the substantial arguments we have presented in favor of reversal, and we look forward to fully arguing the merits of the case in the future.”
Meanwhile, questions arose this week about how the NCAA Selection Committees might handle teams that play with athletes granted eligibility through these cases. One unnamed source told The Field of 68 that selection committees could punish them by not ranking them highly or giving them spots in postseason brackets. But that could be considered a violation of the court orders themselves.
In a statement Monday, Samford AD and Division I men’s basketball committee chair Martin Newton said: “It is not under the committee’s purview to pass judgement on players deemed eligible by an institution, conference, the NCAA, or other entity. A player’s or coach’s availability or unavailability shall be considered without prejudice.”
