NCAA secures 10th Circuit win in 850-athlete eligibility dispute
Federal judges reversed a lower court order that granted Class of 2022 athletes a fifth year of play, but roughly 200 state lawsuits remain pending.
By Samantha Reed ·
A federal appeals court in Denver ruled against approximately 200 state court cases involving up to 850 student-athletes on Friday. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a July decision from a lower court that had granted players who graduated high school in 2022 an additional year of eligibility. This ruling aligns with the National Collegiate Athletic Association's push to limit its new five-year eligibility rule to athletes entering college after the 2022 class.
The July lower court order created immediate disruption by validating the eligibility of Class of 2022 players across the country. Teams responded by signing athletes who had previously been sidelined, leading to what the NCAA described as nationwide chaos. Although the 10th Circuit paused the July ruling in August, many players remained on rosters due to favorable decisions in other state jurisdictions. The Friday decision does not resolve those ongoing state-level disputes, leaving the status of many athletes in a state of flux.
NCAA Chief Legal Officer Scott Bearby called the federal victory consistent with the approach taken by every federal court of appeals in similar matters. In a memo to NCAA members, Bearby stated that the decision acknowledges the organization's concern that retroactively changing eligibility rules destabilizes rosters. He noted that such changes disrupt the settled expectations of student-athletes regarding their roster spots and playing time.
The legal battle has already impacted current seasons. Football's regular season is entering its final month with some players, such as Texas Tech quarterback Thomas Castellanos, moving on and off rosters based on shifting court orders. Basketball season began this week under similar uncertainty. The instability stems from the conflicting rulings between federal and state courts, which have forced coaches and athletic departments to manage rosters with limited clarity.
The 10th Circuit panel, led by Judge Carolyn McHugh, based its decision on the plaintiffs' failure to define the relevant market for players. The judges rejected the argument that all Division I athletes, regardless of sport, formed a single market. McHugh wrote that a football player seeking a Division I spot would not view the 101 schools without a football program as reasonable substitutes. This distinction was central to the court's finding that the players were not being harmed in the manner claimed by the plaintiffs.
