Full Breakdown
NCAA Eligibility Injunction Stays Denied, Fifth-Year Play Remains for 2022 Class
8/12/2026, 12:05:07 AM
Core Event
U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney denied the NCAA’s motion to stay a nationwide injunction that permits Division I athletes who began college in the 2022-2023 academic year and have completed four seasons to compete for a fifth year. The injunction stays in effect while the NCAA appeals to the 10th Circuit.
Background & Context
In June 2026 the NCAA adopted an age-based eligibility rule that limits a fifth year of competition to athletes who entered college before a specific cutoff, thereby excluding the high-school class of 2022. Plaintiffs argued the rule violates antitrust law by reducing output and wages. The district court previously issued a preliminary injunction and certified a nationwide class—an unusually swift step compared with earlier antitrust cases such as O’Bannon.
On the same day, U.S. District Judge Louise W. Flanigan ordered that NC State defensive lineman KaTron Evans be treated as immediately eligible for up to 14 days, through August 24, 2026, while his lawsuit over a denied sixth-year waiver proceeds.
Data & Statistics
- The class action represents “thousands” of Division I athletes from the 2022 high-school cohort.
- About a dozen athletes—including Brock Wisne, Aidan Shaw and Cade Tyson—are named in the filing.
- Evans’ NIL compensation is split one-third off-season and two-thirds during season, with a scheduled 50 percent monthly increase beginning July 2026.
Official Statements & Responses
- She noted the plaintiffs provided evidence of reduced output and wages, rejecting the NCAA’s pro-competitive justifications.
- The NCAA contended that without a stay, member schools would suffer “substantial and irreparable harm” from roster disruptions and destabilization of the 2026-27 season. The organization is represented by Wilkinson Stekloff LLP, Holland & Knight LLP, and Dorsey & Whitney LLP.
- Plaintiffs’ lead attorney Rob Shelquist said the court’s decision validates the class’s claim that the NCAA’s rule could have been avoided with earlier adoption, and that athletes are already contacting coaches to fill roster spots.
- Judge Flanigan noted that denying Evans eligibility could harm him by restricting practice, medical treatment, and NIL income, and that the university would suffer “immediate and ongoing irreparable harm” without his participation.
Criticism & Opposition
He argued that the organization’s business judgment does not excuse non-compliance with federal antitrust law.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The injunction does not address whether the NCAA must modify its transfer rules to allow the enjoined players to transfer. The parties disagree on the scope of the injunction’s language regarding transfer restrictions, and the court has not yet clarified this point, leaving uncertainty about future roster movements.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Recall, regardless, that on one side of the ledger is an entire class of students’ potential ineligibility to play sports due to the NCAA’s Rule and implementation — certainly a form of irreparable harm,” — Charlotte N. Sweeney, judge
- “His monthly NIL payment was scheduled to increase 50 percent per month beginning in July 2026,” — Dave Doeren, NC state coach
What’s Next
- The NCAA will seek a stay from the 10th Circuit while its appeal proceeds.
- A hearing is set for mid-August to establish an expedited schedule for Evans’ lawsuit.
