The NCAA scored a significant legal victory on Friday when a federal appeals court reversed a lower court decision that had granted a fifth year of eligibility to players nationwide who graduated high school in 2022. Even so, the ruling does little to slow the dozens of related lawsuits still moving through state courts across the country.
The decision came in the case Wisne v. NCAA, heard by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. At issue was the NCAA's new rule providing five years of eligibility, a change that applied only to athletes beginning with the next class after the class of 2022.
A lower court ruling in July had gone against the NCAA's approach, effectively making all class of 2022 players eligible. That decision triggered nationwide upheaval, with teams scrambling to sign players who had previously been pushed to the sideline.
By August, when the same appeals court put that ruling on hold, many of those athletes had already landed on rosters anyway, aided by favorable decisions in state courts. The confusion has persisted ever since.
Friday's decision does not resolve roughly 200 state cases involving as many as 850 athletes. Still, the NCAA welcomed the outcome, with chief legal officer Scott Bearby describing it as "consistent with the approach taken by every federal court of appeals" in such disputes.
"The decision also acknowledges the NCAA's concern that retroactively changing eligibility rules can destabilize rosters and disrupt the settled expectations of student-athletes regarding roster spots and playing time," Bearby wrote in a memo to NCAA members.
In practical terms, much of the disruption the NCAA warned about has already occurred. With football's regular season entering its final month, players such as Texas Tech quarterback Thomas Castellanos have moved on and off rosters depending on the latest court action. The college basketball season tipped off this week under similar uncertainty.
The appeals court's reasoning centered on the plaintiffs' inability to define the market for players, a key element in establishing how athletes are harmed when declared ineligible. The three-judge panel rejected the argument that all Division I players, regardless of sport, make up a single market.
Writing for the panel, Judge Carolyn McHugh illustrated the point plainly: "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."
