While dozens of lawsuits challenge the NCAA’s eligibility rules, a new and potentially seismic case is now challenging the NCAA’s transfer portal.
On Tuesday, former SMU women’s basketball player Kyla Deck sued the NCAA and SMU, arguing the NCAA’s transfer portal window and subsequent restrictions for women’s basketball violated federal antitrust laws. Deck has asked for an injunction preventing the NCAA from enforcing its transfer portal restrictions and for damages.
If Deck is successful, the ruling would apply to only her. But because the case was filed in federal court (the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division), it could potentially set a precedent for other players.
Without a favorable ruling, the 21-page complaint reads, “Deck will lose her eligibility to complete her collegiate athletic career under the same rules as her teammates to whom the Transfer Notification Period and the new Five-Year Eligibility Rule applied following the 2025-2026 season. In turn, Deck will lose the scholarship and other opportunities that would have been available to her as she strives to complete her degree. Deck also will lose the significant Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) compensation she would receive from playing in the 2026-2027 season.”
Deck is one of thousands of Division I athletes who are now eligible for a fifth year of competition thanks to the July 31 ruling in the proposed class action Wisne v. NCAA. The case challenged the NCAA’s decision not to grandfather players from the freshman class of 2022 who had already completed four years of competition into its new “age-based eligibility policy,” which grants athletes five years to complete five seasons starting on their 19th birthday or when they enter college. On July 31, Colorado district court judge Charlotte Sweeney granted an injunction forcing the NCAA to allow these players a fifth year.
But there was a catch: While the NCAA couldn’t preclude them from a fifth season, it could enforce its “ghost transfer” rule. Any player who didn’t put their name in the transfer portal during the 2025–26 transfer window couldn’t transfer now—limiting opportunities for many players whose previous teams filled their rosters before this ruling was made. The NCAA has said repeatedly that it would punish schools who play athletes who didn’t put their name in the portal during the requisite period.
Many players with newfound eligibility have filed separate state-specific lawsuits asking for a judge to enjoin the NCAA’s transfer portal restrictions—and many have been successful. But with this federal case specifically challenging the transfer portal rule on federal antitrust grounds, Deck has taken a different route.
The SMU senior, along with her team, had applied to receive a waiver to play this upcoming season due to a previous injury, according to her lawsuit. But because she wanted to stay at SMU, she didn’t ask to enter her name into the transfer portal. Now, she finds herself with another year, but without the opportunity to transfer—something she will need given that SMU told her it doesn’t have a roster spot for her, the complaint says.
“She does not ask the Court to compel SMU to retain her, to award her athletics aid, or to require any institution to recruit or sign her,” the complaint reads. “She asks only that Defendants be restrained from enforcing a deadline and a penalty schedule against her and against institutions willing to deal with her.”
While most of these cases don’t name schools, instead focusing solely on the NCAA as a defendant, Deck’s lawsuit names SMU because the school “agreed to and implements the NCAA restraints that prevent Deck from moving to a competing buyer after SMU elected not to retain her,” the complaint reads.
“Kyla Deck’s case shows how quickly the NCAA can change rules on student athletes who have no say in making them and no way to plan around them,” Deck’s attorney, Chris Langone, told Front Office Sports in a statement. “What she has been denied is any opportunity to be considered by a team. We have asked the court to lift that barrier, and to make clear that no school will be punished for following its order.”
A spokesperson for SMU declined to comment, and the NCAA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
