Amid Roster Chaos, NCAA Loses First Step of Appeal to Deny Eligibility

On Monday night, Colorado district court Judge Charlotte Sweeney declined the NCAA's motion to halt the injunction that enabled all athletes who began college in 2022 but had already completed four years of eligibility to add a fifth year. This decision marks the NCAA's initial loss in an appeal process aimed at overturning the ruling, which unexpectedly granted thousands of athletes potential eligibility.

The case originated in July, stemming from the NCAA's June implementation of a novel "age-based" eligibility policy. Under the new rule, players are granted five years to complete up to five seasons of eligibility (instead of four), beginning at either their 19th birthday or when they enroll in college—whichever comes first. However, athletes started contesting the rule due to the NCAA's claim that players who started college in 2022 but had completed four years of eligibility by the end of the past school year would not be eligible for the fifth year.

Judge Sweeney's injunction, originating from a proposed class action lawsuit in federal court, applied to all eligible athletes nationwide. Yet, at the NCAA's request, she specified that other rules, including roster and revenue-sharing limitations, professional eligibility restrictions, and the "ghost transfer rule," remained in effect.

For the past week, the college sports landscape has been in turmoil as coaches, agents, players, and NIL operators grapple with navigating the new eligibility rules. Simultaneously, the NCAA has chosen to contest the ruling rather than modify its policy. "We are striving to return to the pre-existing arrangement as swiftly as possible, because the current situation represents the collective judgment of the membership regarding what is best for all student-athletes, including the numerous thousands who are just embarking on their college athletics careers," NCAA chief legal officer Scott Bearby stated in a memo to members on August 4th.

The motion that Judge Sweeney ruled on Monday was part of that effort. The NCAA had requested the judge to temporarily suspend the injunction while the Tenth Circuit proceeded with the appeal of the full ruling, which would have required colleges to revert to the pre-existing status quo until the appeal concluded—potentially taking weeks or even months.

Among its arguments, the NCAA contended that players would not suffer "irreparable harm" if the injunction was delayed during the appeals process. Judge Sweeney disagreed, stating, "Nonsense. The Court rejected this argument in its preliminary injunction order and does so again here." The NCAA has also requested the appeals court to overturn the ruling entirely.

For the moment, however, it also asked the appeals court to do what Judge Sweeney refrained from doing on Monday night: suspend the injunction until the appeal is decided. Now, the college sports world will have to await the Tenth Circuit's decision on whether to hear the NCAA's appeal of the injunction.