NCAA pushes 10th Circuit to back age-based eligibility cutoff

The NCAA faces half a dozen lawsuits from college athletes in Colorado alone challenging a rule they say unfairly shortened their sports careers.DENVER (CN) — The National Collegiate Athletic Association asked the 10th Circuit on Tuesday to reverse a lower court order blocking the organization’s eligibility cutoff decision that ended the college sports careers of athletes who graduated from high school in 2022.“Every eligibility rule is exclusionary, that’s the definition of an eligibility rule,” the NCAA’s attorney Rakesh Kilaru told the three-judge panel Tuesday. “We understand that the people left on the other side of the line are disappointed.”Until this year, Division I student athletes were allowed to play four seasons in five years, with exceptions granted to individuals following injuries and to even the playing field following the Covid-19 pandemic.In June, the NCAA adopted new rules to determine age-based eligibility for Division I athletes: students may now compete for five years after they turn 19 or enroll in college, whichever comes first — effectively ending college sports careers at 24.The following month, University of Northern Colorado basketball player Brock Wisne filed class action antitrust and breach of contract claims against the NCAA in federal court, arguing the new eligibility rule prematurely ended the careers of some athletes who started college in 2022-23. Wisne claims the change in rules put him and other 2022 high school graduates at risk of losing scholarships and shortened their opportunity to play Division I sports.U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney, a Joe Biden appointee, quickly granted class certification and a temporary restraining order to allow the college athletes to compete in NCAA sports at the start of the school year. In August, the 10th Circuit lifted the stay, reinstating the new rule at the start of the 2026-2027 school year — at least through the appeal.Kilaru told the 10th Circuit panel the student-athletes did not bring in enough data to back their antitrust claims against the NCAA.“The broader concern you have here is that any time the NCAA draws a line between who can play sports and who can’t, you’ll have a plaintiff come in and say ‘we just want to compete, that’s pretty much the evidence we’re going to put forth,’” Kilaru, who practices with Wilkinson Stekloff in Washington, said. “If that is enough, every eligibility rule is going to go by the wayside.”Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Paul Joseph Kelly, a George H.W. Bush appointee, asked both parties to start with fundamentals and define the market.Kilaru argued the market as defined by the athletes was too broad, and wrongly considered the NCAA a buyer, when the NCAA simply sets the rules and lets individual schools compete for athletes.On behalf of the athletes, attorney Robert Shelquist argued the NCAA holds a monopoly over college sports and wrongly discriminated against the 2022 student class.“This case is about the NCAA, a monopsonist gatekeeper to the Division I labor market, that has unequivocally decided that five seasons of play in five years is the right rule,” Shelquist, who practices with Cuneo Gilbert in St. Louis, told the panel.In creating the rule, Shelquist argued the NCAA unfairly cut the 2022 classes’ career short with “no antitrust procompetitive justification for its exclusion.”U.S. Circuit Judge Carolyn McHugh said the court couldn’t move forward without a market definition.“You’re trying to jump into the anticompetitive argument without giving us something to measure the effects by,” the Barack Obama appointee said. “It’s almost like an algebra problem, there are thing you have to do first.”McHugh additionally considered whether the court should withhold ruling and let Congress solve the problem through the Protect College Sports Act, which passed the Senate in September and now sits the currently adjourned House.Obama-appointed U.S. Circuit Judge Nancy Moritz rounded out the panel. The court held argument remotely and broadcast the hearing on YouTube. The court did not indicate when or how it would decide the case.Categories / Appeals, SportsSubscribe 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