Fifth-year NCAA basketball players ineligible again following appeals court ruling

An Ohio appeals panel determined the players are unlikely to prevail on their contract claims against college sports' governing body.CINCINNATI (CN) — A group of college basketball players who challenged the NCAA’s recently updated eligibility rules and sought a fifth year of competition were rebuffed Friday by an appeals court that struck down a preliminary injunction.24 student-athletes sued the NCAA hours after it passed new eligibility rules in June, claiming they were unfairly excluded from receiving a fifth year of eligibility simply because they graduated high school in 2022.Updated guidelines now allow Division I athletes to compete in five seasons over a five-year period, whereas previous rules allowed four seasons of competition over the same time period. The five-year calendar period now begins with a student’s full-time enrollment or the academic year following their 19th birthday.The basketball players who filed the lawsuit argued the new rules are arbitrary and unfairly deprived them of the opportunity to earn income through name, image and likeness, or NIL, rights.Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Christopher Wagner agreed and granted the players’ motion for a preliminary injunction in July, but Friday’s opinion vacated that injunction.A panel of Ohio’s First District Court of Appeals ruled the players are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their breach of contract claim against the NCAA, even if they are intended third-party beneficiaries of contracts between the governing body and its member institutions.First District Court of Appeals Judge Candace Crouse emphasized the NCAA’s decisions regarding application of its rules are entitled to deference because of its nature as a voluntary association.“The NCAA cabinet voted unanimously to implement the new age-based eligibility model and not apply it retroactively,” she said. “The statement from the conference commissioners avowing their support for the NCAA’s revision of the eligibility rules, including the decision not to apply the rule retroactively, supports a determination that the NCAA did not act arbitrarily.”Roster instability and the impact of returning players on incoming freshmen gave the NCAA legitimate reason to preclude individuals who graduated high school in 2022 from receiving a fifth year of eligibility, the panel determined.“We understand the plaintiffs’ frustration with their exclusion from the new eligibility model. But we are also mindful that at the time the plaintiffs began their collegiate athletic careers, they understood that they were entitled to four years of athletic eligibility within a five-year period. And that is what they received,” Crouse said in her opinion.The appeals panel agreed with the student-athletes their exclusion from college basketball — and any subsequent NIL earnings — qualified as an irreparable injury, but other factors weighed in favor of the NCAA.Additional eligibility for the players would harm teammates who already secured roster spots through reduced playing time, while continued, nationwide litigation harms the public and creates uncertainty throughout the world of college sports, according to the court.“It is arguably preferable to have a voluntary association interpret and apply its own rules for the sake of uniform enforcement and predictability,” Crouse said.She remanded the case to the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court and reminded all parties they are “free to introduce additional evidence and supplement the record at a hearing on the merits.”First District Court of Appeals Judges Terry Nestor and Richard Moore also sat on the panel and concurred with Crouse’s opinion.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads