Kenya
Nigeria
Ghana
South Africa
United Kingdom
United States
India
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Cameroon
Ivory CoastAppeals Court Overturns Fifth Year Eligibility Ruling for College Athletes
The NCAA won a federal appeals court ruling on five year eligibility, but hundreds of state court cases still leave college rosters uncertain.
Appeals Court Sides With NCAA on Rules
Federal judges gave the NCAA a major legal victory on Friday. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver reversed a lower court decision involving the case Wisne vs. NCAA.
The lower court ruling from July had given a fifth year of eligibility to players who graduated high school in 2022. That ruling went against the NCAA rule. The college sports organization had granted five years of eligibility, but only starting with athletes from the next year's high school class.
The July decision created widespread confusion across college sports. Teams rushed to sign players who had been sitting on the sidelines. The appeals court put that ruling on hold in August, but the legal battles are far from over.
State Court Lawsuits Keep Teams in Limbo
Friday's federal ruling does not stop roughly 200 state court cases involving up to 850 athletes across the country. Many players managed to get onto team rosters because of favorable state court decisions.
The ongoing legal fights leave programs dealing with constant changes. Football is entering its final month of the regular season, and basketball started this week under similar uncertainty. For example, Texas Tech quarterback Thomas Castellanos has moved on and off the roster based on recent court decisions.
NCAA chief legal officer Scott Bearby praised the federal ruling. He stated that it was "consistent with the approach taken by every federal court of appeals" in similar cases. In a memo to NCAA members, Bearby added that retroactively changing eligibility rules "can destabilize rosters and disrupt the settled expectations of student athletes regarding roster spots and playing time."
Defining the Market for College Athletes
The three judge panel ruled in favor of the NCAA because the plaintiffs failed to properly define the market for college players. Defining the market is a key step in determining how players suffer harm from being declared ineligible.
The plaintiffs argued that all Division I athletes form a single market regardless of their sport. Judge Carolyn McHugh rejected that idea in the written decision for the court.
McHugh wrote, "Obviously, a football player looking for a Division I roster spot would not view the 101 schools without a football program as reasonably good substitutes."
Where to go next
On this site
Note: we do not get paid for any link on this page.
Be the first to comment
Tell us who you think wins and why. Keep it friendly. Links are removed on their own.
Note: comments are the writer own opinion, not ours, and never a tip from us.
