Federal Judge Orders NCAA to Allow Fifth Season for Class of 2022 Athletes

A nationwide preliminary injunction covers qualifying Division I athletes who began competing in college during the 2022-23 school year, although transfer, roster, and professional-status rules remain in place.

A federal judge in Colorado has temporarily ordered the NCAA to allow a nationwide group of Division I athletes to compete for a fifth season, expanding the immediate reach of the association’s newly adopted eligibility system.

U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney granted a class-wide preliminary injunction on Friday, July 31, finding that the athletes were likely to succeed on their claim that the NCAA’s transition rules violate federal antitrust law. The order applies while the lawsuit continues and does not amount to a final decision that the NCAA acted unlawfully.

The lawsuit, Wisne v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by 12 athletes from several Division I sports. The named plaintiffs include basketball, baseball, and track and field athletes who completed four college seasons but were excluded from the NCAA’s new five-year eligibility model.

Although the group has widely been described as the high school Class of 2022, the legal definition is more precise. The injunction covers Division I athletes who began competing during the 2022-23 season, completed four years of eligibility by the end of the 2025-26 season and were denied a fifth year because of the NCAA’s transition rules.

The NCAA adopted a new age-based eligibility system in June. Under that model, an athlete generally receives five seasons of competition during a continuous five-year period beginning with full-time college enrollment or the academic year after the athlete turns 19, whichever occurs first.

The system is scheduled to apply fully to athletes entering college in fall 2027. Transitional rules also allow some current athletes to use either the old or new system, depending on which provides more eligibility. The NCAA excluded athletes who had already completed their fourth and final season during the 2025-26 academic year.

That exclusion placed the plaintiffs between two eligibility systems. Athletes entering college later could receive five seasons, while the plaintiffs remained limited to four even though they began their college careers only a few years earlier.

The athletes argued that the distinction unlawfully limits competition in the nationwide market for Division I athletic services. They said the rule prevents them from competing for roster positions, scholarships and name, image and likeness compensation during an additional season.

Sweeney agreed that the plaintiffs had presented enough evidence to proceed with their antitrust claim. She found that Division I athletics could constitute a distinct labor market because athletes do not have a practical substitute that offers the same level of competition, exposure, educational benefits and potential NIL income.

The judge also found that the NCAA exercises substantial power over that market through rules governing when and for how long athletes can compete. By excluding an entire group from a fifth season, the rule reduces the number of athletes able to offer their services to Division I schools and compete for uncapped NIL payments, according to the order.

The NCAA argued that applying the new rule to athletes who had already exhausted their eligibility could create roster instability and reduce opportunities for incoming high school athletes. Sweeney rejected that explanation as an insufficient procompetitive justification. Limiting the number of available athletes does not become procompetitive merely because it creates opportunities for other players, the court reasoned.

The court also pointed to the NCAA’s existing waiver system as a less restrictive option. Individual waivers could address unusual circumstances without excluding the entire class, undermining the association’s argument that broader eligibility would necessarily cause widespread roster disruption.

Sweeney found that the athletes would face irreparable harm without immediate relief. A lost college season cannot be restored through a later damages award, particularly when athletic opportunities, scholarships and NIL compensation are tied to an athlete’s limited playing career.

The court concluded that the balance of hardships favored the athletes and that enforcing federal antitrust law serves the public interest. Those findings allowed Sweeney to issue preliminary relief before the case reaches a final judgment.

The judge clarified the scope of the injunction on Sunday, August 2. The order gives covered athletes an additional season, but it does not suspend other NCAA requirements.

Athletes remain subject to transfer-portal deadlines, academic standards, roster limits and the age-based portion of the new eligibility system. The injunction also does not alter the roster and revenue-sharing provisions approved through the House antitrust settlement.

The clarification is particularly important for athletes who have entered professional sports. Signing a professional contract can still make an athlete ineligible under separate NCAA rules. The order does not create a right for former professionals to return to college competition, nor does it guarantee any athlete a roster position, scholarship or NIL agreement.

The NCAA appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on Monday, August 3, and asked for an emergency stay. Unless the district court or appeals court suspends the injunction, it remains in effect as schools prepare for the 2026-27 academic year.

NCAA President Charlie Baker said the ruling could disrupt roster planning and renewed his call for Congress to adopt nationwide standards for college sports. The NCAA has supported legislation that would give the association greater authority to establish eligibility and compensation rules while limiting future antitrust challenges.

The Colorado ruling is part of a growing series of challenges to NCAA eligibility restrictions. Courts in Tennessee and Ohio have recently granted similar relief to smaller groups of athletes, adding pressure on the NCAA as it attempts to replace its traditional four-season model with a uniform age-based system.

The next immediate question is whether the 10th Circuit will allow the injunction to remain in force while the appeal proceeds. For affected athletes and their schools, that decision could determine whether they can compete this fall or lose another season before the courts reach a final answer.