Background
Twenty-four student-athletes who began college in 2022 sued the NCAA after exhausting the four seasons of eligibility available under the rules in effect when they enrolled. In June 2026, the NCAA adopted an age-based eligibility rule generally allowing five seasons, but made it applicable only to athletes with eligibility remaining as of August 1, 2026. The plaintiffs therefore did not qualify.
The athletes alleged that the NCAA Manual was a contract and that the NCAA breached its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by excluding them from the new rule. They sought a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the eligibility rule and Transfer Portal requirements. The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas granted that relief; the NCAA appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The First District held that the preliminary injunction was a final, appealable order because it changed the status quo by making otherwise ineligible athletes eligible, and an appeal after final judgment would not provide meaningful relief once annual rosters and playing opportunities were set.
On the merits, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the injunction. Assuming without deciding that the NCAA Manual is a contract and that the athletes are intended third-party beneficiaries, the record did not show that the NCAA acted arbitrarily or capriciously in declining to apply its new eligibility rule retroactively. The NCAA had evidence that retroactive application would disrupt rosters, playing time, and expectations of schools and other athletes. Nor did the record establish arbitrary waiver denials; only four plaintiffs sought waivers, and the record did not show why they were denied.
Key Takeaways
- NCAA eligibility decisions remain entitled to deference absent mistake, fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness.
- A nonretroactive eligibility-rule change was supported by roster-stability and reliance concerns, defeating the athletes’ showing of likely success at this stage.
- The injunction could harm third parties by affecting not only roster spots but also other athletes’ playing time.
Why It Matters
The decision restores the NCAA’s ability to enforce its August 2026 eligibility rule against these plaintiffs while the underlying case proceeds. It also underscores that courts reviewing voluntary athletic associations will not replace their rulemaking judgments without evidence of arbitrary or capricious action.
The court did not finally resolve the contract claims. The parties may develop additional evidence at a merits hearing on permanent relief.