Tenth Circuit reverses ruling on 2022 NCAA eligibility
A federal appeals court in Denver overturned a lower court order that granted an extra year of play to high school graduates from 2022, though hundreds of state cases remain pending.
By Chioma Kuznetsov ·
Federal judges in Denver reversed a lower court decision Friday that had granted an extra year of eligibility to student-athletes who graduated high school in 2022. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case Wisne v. NCAA, rejecting the idea that the NCAA's new five-year eligibility rule should apply retroactively to that specific class. This decision aligns with the NCAA's policy of starting the five-year window with the following academic year.
In July, a lower court had ruled against the NCAA's original stance. That order effectively made all players from the class of 2022 eligible for competition. The ruling created confusion across the country, as teams scrambled to sign athletes who had previously been sidelined. Although the appeals court paused the July ruling in August, many of those players remained on rosters due to favorable decisions in state courts.
The federal victory does not settle approximately 200 separate state court cases. Those state-level lawsuits involve as many as 850 athletes. Scott Bearby, the NCAA's chief legal officer, called the federal decision consistent with approaches taken by other federal courts of appeals. He noted in a memo to NCAA members that the ruling acknowledges concerns about destabilizing rosters by changing eligibility rules after the fact.
The uncertainty has already affected current seasons. Football teams are in the final month of their regular schedules, and some players have moved on and off rosters depending on legal outcomes. Texas Tech quarterback Thomas Castellanos is one example of a player whose status has fluctuated. The basketball season also began this week amid similar legal ambiguity.
Judge Carolyn McHugh wrote the opinion for the three-judge panel. The decision focused on the plaintiffs' failure to define the market for players. The panel rejected the argument that all Division I players form a single market regardless of their sport. McHugh stated that a football player seeking a roster spot would not view the 101 schools without a football program as reasonable substitutes.
