A PYMNTS Company

Judge Refuses to Pause NCAA Eligibility Order Amid Antitrust Fight

By  |  August 11, 2026
NCAA

A federal judge has rejected the NCAA’s request to suspend a ruling that permits a group of Division I athletes to compete for an additional season, leaving the expanded eligibility in effect while the organization pursues an appeal.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney said the NCAA had not demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, according to Bloomberg Law. In an Aug. 10 order, the Colorado judge also attributed the disruption cited by the association to its own handling of recently adopted eligibility rules.

    Sweeney previously issued a temporary restraining order allowing athletes from the high school class of 2022 who had completed four collegiate seasons to play for a fifth year, Bloomberg Law reported. The athletes contend that rules adopted by the NCAA in June improperly exclude them from an additional season available more broadly to other players.

    The NCAA asked Sweeney to suspend that relief while it appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. According to Bloomberg Law, the association argued that keeping the order in place would disrupt established rosters and destabilize the 2026-27 college sports season.

    Sweeney was unpersuaded, describing the NCAA’s predicament as a “bind of its own making,” Bloomberg Law reported. Although courts generally defer to business decisions, she said that principle does not excuse compliance with federal antitrust law.

    Related: NCAA Faces Proposed Antitrust Class Action Challenging New Age-Based Eligibility Policy

    The court also rejected the NCAA’s argument that the athletes had failed to show anticompetitive harm. According to Bloomberg Law, Sweeney referred to an earlier finding that the challenged eligibility restriction could reduce athletic opportunities and depress compensation.

    The potential loss facing the athletes weighed heavily against a stay. Sweeney said an entire class of students could become ineligible because of the rule and its implementation, a consequence the court viewed as a form of irreparable harm, Bloomberg Law reported.

    Rob Shelquist, the lead attorney for the athletes and proposed class members, told Bloomberg Law that players had begun contacting coaches about available roster positions. He said the demand for those athletes undermined the NCAA’s position that no relevant market existed and argued that earlier adoption of the rule could have prevented the scheduling and roster difficulties.

    The NCAA declined to comment to Bloomberg Law.

    Wilkinson Stekloff LLP, Holland & Knight LLP and Dorsey & Whitney LLP represent the NCAA, according to the publication. The plaintiffs are represented by Cuneo Gilbert Flannery & LaDuca LLP.

    The case is Wisne v. NCAA, No. 1:26-cv-03063, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

    Source: Bloomberg Law