- within Insurance, Government, Public Sector and Environment topic(s)
On August 21, 2026, the Tenth Circuit granted the NCAA’s stay request in Wisne v. NCAA, temporarily restoring the NCAA’s age-based eligibility rules pending resolution of the appeal. Three weeks earlier, Judge Sweeney of the District of Colorado had issued a nationwide injunction that permitted athletes in the Class of 2022 to pursue a fifth year of eligibility.
Background
On June 23, the NCAA adopted a new “five-for-five” eligibility rule, which granted Division I athletes five seasons of competition over a five-year period beginning with the earlier of their full-time enrollment or the academic year following their 19th birthday. However, noting the potential roster management complications for the upcoming athletic year, the NCAA excluded athletes in the Class of 2022 from the rule change. A group of Division I athletes led by former Northern Colorado basketball player Brock Wisne filed a class action alleging the rule violated federal antitrust law by denying Class of 2022 athletes an additional season of eligibility, and with it, another year of earning potential via NIL and revenue-sharing arrangements. On July 31, in a surprisingly quick ruling, Judge Sweeney certified a nationwide class and issued an injunction.
The Stay
The NCAA quickly appealed to the Tenth Circuit and sought a stay of the ruling. In a 2-1 decision, the Tenth Circuit panel stayed the injunction pending an expedited appeal. Following the ruling, the NCAA notified member institutions that its pre-injunction eligibility rules are back in force effective immediately, and that class members who had already returned to competition or practice under the Wisne injunction are no longer eligible. However, in issuing the guidance, the NCAA noted an exception for affected athletes who had sought and obtained independent relief from a state court. As a result, several high-profile Division I football players who had rejoined college rosters, including Indiana University defensive linemen Stephen Daley and Kellan Wyatt and University of Arizona running back Ismail Mahdi, have been sidelined, though they remain eligible to practice with their respective teams.
The Patchwork Problem
Significantly, the 10th Circuit’s stay is limited to the injunction issued by Judge Sweeney and does not impact independent state-court rulings. In a wave of parallel litigation, athletes obtained favorable decisions in California, Georgia, Louisiana, and Tennessee that granted them eligibility, which rulings remain in effect in those jurisdictions. At the same time, an injunction issued in the Ohio state court has been separately stayed pending appeal by the Ohio Court of Appeals. The result is a genuinely fractured landscape, with the eligibility for members of the Class of 2022 essentially dependent upon the location of the athlete and the institution rather than on the underlying facts of the case.
Legislative Backdrop
Some analysts have noted that the uncertainty associated with the litigation, which is unfolding simultaneously with the kickoff of the 2026-2027 college football season, may spur Congress to pass comprehensive legislation to address unresolved issues pertaining to NIL, revenue sharing and eligibility. Following Judge Sweeney’s July 31 ruling, both the SEC and Big Ten publicly announced support for the Protect College Sports Act, a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA). The SEC and Big Ten, which enjoy the most lucrative media deals (and a corresponding competitive advantage over other athletic conferences), had previously expressed reservations about the contents of the bill. Among other things, the proposed legislation would grant the NCAA antitrust immunity on eligibility matters.
Practical Implications
Consistent with the NCAA’s recent guidance, institutions should immediately audit rosters for any Class of 2022 athletes who returned under the Wisne injunction, confirm current eligibility status on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, and coordinate with conference compliance offices before permitting any such athletes to continue participation in practice or competition. The expedited timeline for the 10th Circuit appeal and the multiplicity of active state-court proceedings provide for a rapidly developing situation, which bears continued monitoring.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]