The NCAA won an important battle Friday in the ongoing legal war to determine who should be allowed to play college sports in the upcoming season.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the NCAA a stay Friday morning in an order that reverses the federal judge's decision that previously opened the door for all athletes who started college in the 2022-23 academic year and played for four consecutive seasons to return for a fifth season. NCAA chief legal officer sent a letter to schools Friday afternoon saying that the association's eligibility rules were back in effect.
"The Tenth Circuit's decision to stay the preliminary injunction issued by a Colorado federal district court judge in Wisne permits Division I to return to the status quo before the district court intervened," wrote Scott Bearby, chief legal officer for the NCAA. "Effective immediately, the age-based eligibility rules will be implemented as the Division I membership intended."
The stay does not wipe out the dozens of athletes who have successfully petitioned for restraining orders to play a fifth season in state courts around the country. The appeals court decision could spark more lawsuits, restraining order requests and confusion with only two weeks remaining before college football season begins in full force. Bearby said in his letter that the NCAA plans to "expeditiously" fight against other legal rulings that have allowed similarly situated players back into college sports.
The NCAA changed its eligibility rules earlier this year to allow all college athletes to play five seasons during a five-year window that opens the year after they finish high school or turn 19 years old. The previous NCAA rules allowed athletes to play four seasons during a five-year window. The change created a specific group of outgoing seniors who played in each of their four years who were out of eligibility under the old rules but would be eligible for another season if the new rule applied to them.
The NCAA's Division I board of directors decided in June that their new rules would not apply to outgoing seniors, saying that an influx of unexpected veterans returning to campus would unfairly take opportunities away from incoming freshmen who had already signed to play with their new schools before the rule change was made. Since then, at least a dozen different groups comprising more than 100 total outgoing seniors have sued the NCAA in federal and state courts. They have all asked judges to provide them with restraining orders that would allow them to play again this coming year.
Friday's decision is related to a federal lawsuit led by Northern Colorado basketball player Brock Wisne, who argues that the NCAA is violating antitrust law by preventing him from playing a fifth season. The Wisne case was the only eligibility lawsuit that was a class action case, which means that the judge's decision in his case applied to all athletes who had just completed their fourth season in the last four years. On July 31, a federal judge granted all athletes a blanket order that would allow them to play in the upcoming season. Friday's order overturns that ruling.
However, athletes who have filed separate lawsuits -- many of them in state courts -- and received restraining orders in those cases are not impacted by the Wisne case.
One high-profile example includes a case filed in Louisiana earlier this week in which 32 total athletes, including several football players who signed with NFL teams and some who are currently on NFL preseason rosters, were granted a restraining order by a local judge to return to college sports. The Wisne case did specifically open a window for athletes to transfer to new schools, so players looking to transfer would have needed to file a separate lawsuit even if the NCAA had lost its appeal in the Wisne case.
The NCAA has not yet filed an appeal in Louisiana, but the association and conference-level officials have consistently opposed rulings that allow players to return to college sports after they've signed pro contracts after their eligibility has expired for other reasons.
Ryan Downton, one of the attorneys representing players in the Louisiana case among several others, said Friday that his firm has already been working on filing additional requests for restraining orders in state courts.
ESPN's Pete Thamel contributed to this report.