NCAA Wins Appeal Blocking Fifth Year of Eligibility for College Athletes

A federal appeals court handed the NCAA a victory Friday, November 6, 2026, overturning a nationwide injunction that would have allowed thousands of Division I athletes to compete for a fifth season under the association's expanded eligibility rules.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that a Colorado federal judge improperly treated all Division I sports as a single labor market when deciding that the athletes were likely to succeed in their antitrust lawsuit. The decision allows the NCAA to continue excluding athletes who completed four seasons under its previous eligibility rules.

The NCAA adopted a new system in June allowing qualifying Division I athletes to compete for five seasons within five years, replacing a longstanding rule that generally limited players to four seasons over the same period. Athletes who had exhausted their eligibility by the end of the 2025-26 academic year were excluded from the change.

Twelve athletes, including University of Northern Colorado basketball player Brock Wisne and Minnesota basketball player Cade Tyson, sued the NCAA in July, claiming the exclusion cost them opportunities for roster positions, scholarships, and name, image, and likeness (NIL) earnings.

The athletes argued that the NCAA violated the Sherman Act, a federal antitrust law prohibiting agreements that unreasonably restrict competition. They claimed member schools collectively enforced the eligibility cutoff, preventing players from pursuing another season even when schools were willing to recruit them.

U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney granted a nationwide preliminary injunction on July 31, finding that the athletes had demonstrated a likelihood of succeeding on their antitrust claim. The order temporarily extended eligibility to qualifying athletes who began competing during the 2022-23 academic year and completed four consecutive seasons.

The NCAA appealed, warning that retroactive eligibility would disrupt team rosters and reduce opportunities for incoming players. The Tenth Circuit suspended the injunction in August as schools prepared for the new academic year.

Writing for the three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Carolyn McHugh ruled Friday that the athletes had failed to establish a legally supported market in which the NCAA allegedly restricted competition.

The athletes' economic expert had treated all Division I athletics nationwide as one market. McHugh found that recruiting opportunities vary substantially among sports, making individual athletic programs more appropriate for assessing competition than universities collectively.

Of the 366 Division I universities cited in the opinion, 265 have football programs and only 63 offer women's gymnastics. A football player seeking another season would have little reason to consider a university without a football team, the court explained.

The panel also found that the athletes' expert had supplied economic data for only a limited number of sports, leaving the proposed nationwide market unsupported. The judges reversed the injunction because the athletes had failed to establish a likelihood of success under the market definition they presented.

The appeals court left the broader legality of the NCAA's eligibility restrictions for further litigation. The athletes also brought contract claims that were outside the scope of Friday's decision.

The ruling follows several federal appeals court decisions scrutinizing NCAA eligibility restrictions under antitrust law as college athletes gain access to NIL compensation and direct payments from schools.

Congress has also moved toward federal regulation of college sports. In September, the Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act, which would establish national rules for athlete compensation, transfers, and eligibility while granting the NCAA limited protection from antitrust lawsuits.

Meanwhile, roughly 200 related state court cases involving as many as 850 athletes continue across the country. Some players have secured individual orders allowing them to compete, leaving eligibility decisions subject to separate court rulings even after the NCAA's federal appeals court victory.