A federal judge's nationwide injunction, issued last Friday, has created a dispute between the NCAA and a group of plaintiff athletes. The order extends eligibility for players who started collegiate sports in the 2022-2023 season and completed their college careers this past spring.
The NCAA, in a brief filed Thursday, argues that a dozen players, led by Northern Colorado basketball player Brock Wisne, have misinterpreted the injunction. The association claims the players are trying to broaden the order's effect significantly beyond its intended scope.
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney, nominated by President Joe Biden in 2021, clarified her order did not stop enforcement of transfer rules or other eligibility regulations. This clarification, the NCAA said, applies outside of how the association interprets its new age-based eligibility rule, which allows for up to five years of competition.
A separate statement from Judge Sweeney has fueled the debate. She wrote that the NCAA is prevented from prohibiting class members from competing in a fifth collegiate season under the rule "or any NCAA bylaw."
The NCAA argues it would be illogical to include transfer rules when Judge Sweeney explicitly said she was not enjoining them. The association points to page four of her opinion, which says the order does not affect transfer rule operations. The NCAA maintains it makes no sense for a phrase on page six to override that explicit statement.
Players contend the NCAA is using transfer portal regulations — particularly potential penalties for schools recruiting outside official windows — to undermine the injunction. If players cannot transfer to other institutions, their only option is their 2025-26 school, provided a roster spot exists.
Many college rosters are already set as the fall semester approaches. The players argue that "or any NCAA bylaw" should cover transfer rules or other regulations that limit where class members can play.
The NCAA insists such a broad interpretation has no limiting principle. The association warns it could extend to rules governing professional participation by collegiate athletes, sports wagering, banned substances, acceptance of improper benefits, GPA requirements and credit-hour minimums.
NCAA Chief Legal Officer Scott Bearby called the injunction "egregiously wrong." He argued the order seeks to replace the House v. NCAA settlement, an agreement that binds all plaintiffs in the Wisne case.
Schools seeking to add a class member made eligible by the injunction must still adhere to revenue-sharing caps and roster limits from the House v. NCAA settlement. The NCAA declined to retroactively make players eligible earlier due to concerns about "roster chaos."
On Aug. 3, the NCAA moved for a stay of the injunction and filed a notice for an expedited appeal to the Tenth Circuit.
