NCAA Enjoined From Enforcing New Fifth-Year Eligibility Rule

On June 23, 2026, 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. The new rule replaced the traditional “redshirt” model that permitted four seasons of play over five years. Critically, however, the NCAA excluded athletes in the class of 2022 from the rule change, reasoning that broad reinstatement would displace incoming freshmen and destabilize rosters that had already been set under the limits imposed by the July 2025 House settlement. Predictably, litigation ensued.

The District of Colorado Quickly Grants Class Certification and Injunction

In early July, former Northern Colorado basketball player Brock Wisne filed a class action lawsuit, arguing that the rule’s timing and exclusionary scope violated federal antitrust law by denying him and other similarly situated athletes a final season of eligibility, and with it, another year of earning potential via NIL and revenue-sharing arrangements. In a surprising development, on July 25, after only a few weeks of litigation, Judge Charlotte Sweeney of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado certified a nationwide class of Division I athletes who graduated from high school in 2022 and subsequently enjoined the NCAA from enforcing the new eligibility rule against them. The NCAA quickly appealed to the Tenth Circuit and sought a stay of the ruling pending the appeal, which Judge Sweeney denied.

Citing potential disruptions to the upcoming season, the NCAA separately filed an emergency motion for clarification as to the scope of the injunction. On August 2, Judge Sweeney issued an order clarifying that class members are not eligible to return if they are over the age of 24 — in essence, holding that the NCAA can enforce its age-based eligibility policy. The order further held that class members who had already signed a professional contract (either in the U.S. or overseas) are not eligible to return to NCAA competition and that the NCAA may continue to enforce its transfer rules, such that affected athletes who did not formally enter the transfer portal may only return to their previous team. Finally, the order clarified that schools that opt to add class members to their current rosters remain subject to the revenue-sharing and roster caps established by the House settlement.

NCAA Guidance

Following the injunction, NCAA Chief Legal Officer Scott Bearby sent a letter to member institutions expressly declining to take a position as to whether schools should roster class of 2022 athletes. Instead, the letter indicated only that existing NCAA bylaws will continue fully in force and advised that individual athletic departments and coaches must make their own independent decisions on roster management. The letter further underscored the NCAA’s intention to apply current recruiting and compliance rules, specifically including the prohibition on “ghost transfers” (transfers completed outside the portal system) and the Rule of Restitution, while confirming that it would not issue a blanket eligibility waiver for the class while it continues to litigate.

Practical Implications

Pursuant to Judge Sweeney’s clarification order, schools electing to roster a returning class-of-2022 athlete are still bound by the NCAA’s revenue-sharing cap and roster limits. Consequently, adding an eligible class member may require displacing another rostered player, which raises both compliance and litigation risks under existing revenue-sharing agreements. Moreover, schools face potential exposure under the Rule of Restitution, which provides for retroactive penalties including vacated wins, forfeited postseason eligibility and disgorgement of media revenues for schools competing with a player later deemed ineligible if the injunction is dissolved or narrowed.

With the NCAA expressly declining to shield members from application of its bylaws and no stay in place during the pendency of the appeal before the Tenth Circuit, schools find themselves in a potentially difficult situation as the 2026-27 athletic season approaches. This uncertainty over the application of the five-for-five rule is just the latest in a series of ongoing challenges for institutions seeking to balance the need to remain both competitive and compliant in the rapidly changing post-House landscape.

The Buchanan NIL team routinely monitors and analyzes the evolving legal landscape surrounding name, image, and likeness issues, providing clients with timely insights into regulatory changes and compliance strategies. Stay informed on the latest NIL developments by exploring all our coverage here.