Overview
Overview
The already tumultuous legal landscape of college athletics eligibility just became even more complex. On July 31, a federal judge in Colorado issued a preliminary injunction in Wisne v. NCAA which prevents the NCAA from enforcing a newly issued rule barring certain Division I student-athletes from competing in a fifth season under the newly adopted Five-Year Eligibility Rule, commonly referred to as the "Five-for-Five" rule.[1]
The plaintiffs are twelve Division I athletes led by University of Northern Colorado basketball player Brock Wisne, who began collegiate competition during the 2022–23 season. These athletes competed in four seasons and were deemed ineligible for a fifth season under the NCAA's Five-for-Five rule.[2] The court certified the "Class of 2022" as a nationwide class of "[a]ll persons in the United States who began to play in collegiate sports in the 2022-2023 season, competed in NCAA Division I sports, and completed four years of eligibility as defined by the NCAA's prior rules by the conclusion of the 2025-2026 season, and are therefore barred from playing a fifth season due to the NCAA's adoption and immediate implementation of the Five-Year Eligibility Rule."[3]
The Five-for-Five Rule
The Five-for-Five rule was adopted by the NCAA in June 2026 as a way to simplify—and hopefully end—the eligibility debates roiling college sports. The rule is a new age-based eligibility model, under which athletes may compete in collegiate athletics for up to five seasons during a five-year period of full-time enrollment that begins after the earlier of the athlete's 19th birthday or the date on which they enroll.[4] The NCAA adopted the rule to streamline and standardize its eligibility rules, make them easier for student-athletes and institutions to understand and administer in the current litigious environment, and better align athletic eligibility with typical college enrollment and graduation patterns.[5]
However, the rule explicitly does not apply to athletes who began play in 2022 and had already completed four years of competition by the end of the 2025-26 season.[6] The NCAA's rationale for this was that applying the new five-year model to the Class of 2022 would "destabilize college sports" and create "roster chaos" for member schools.[7] On the basis that this exclusion from the rule violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the plaintiffs sought and successfully enjoined this provision of the rule, securing themselves a fifth year of eligibility to play in the 2026-27 season.[8]
The Preliminary Injunction
On July 31, 2026, Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney of the US District Court for the District of Colorado granted the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction.[9] The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Section 1 Sherman Act claim because the NCAA’s rule operated as a commercial restraint in the Division I athlete labor market and plaintiffs offered sufficient evidence that excluding the Class of 2022 would reduce output, wages, and quality in that market.[10] The court further held that the NCAA failed to establish a valid procompetitive rationale for the exclusion and, even if it had, plaintiffs showed that substantially less restrictive alternatives were available, including eligibility waivers.[11]
The injunction enjoins the NCAA from implementing its Five-for-Five rule in a manner that would bar the plaintiffs and certified class members from competing in a fifth season of collegiate athletics.[12] The effect of the injunction is limited to a specific group of Division I athletes: those who began play in the 2022-23 season, exhausted four years of eligibility by the end of the 2025-26 season, and were excluded from the NCAA’s new five-year eligibility model.[13] Still, the NCAA estimated that the number of student-athletes affected by this injunction "may number in the many thousands."[14]
Clarification and Stay Proceedings
The court’s July 31 order did not spell out every operational consequence of the injunction, prompting the NCAA to seek emergency clarification on August 1, which the court granted and provided the following day in a second order.[15] In its subsequent order, the court explained that the NCAA is enjoined from prohibiting plaintiffs and class members from competing in a fifth season of collegiate athletics under the challenged rule or any NCAA bylaw.[16]
Just as important, the court's second order clarified that the injunction did not enjoin any provision of the landmark House settlement in 2025.[17] Specifically, the injunction did not: (i) disturb roster caps or compensation-cap provisions imposed by the settlement; (ii) enjoin NCAA transfer rules; or (iii) prevent schools from making eligibility determinations based on whether a student-athlete was over twenty years old at the time of enrollment during the 2022-23 season.[18] The court also emphasized that the clarification order "change[d] zero percent" of its substantive antitrust analysis and operated only to clarify the scope of relief.[19]
The NCAA filed a notice of appeal and sought both an administrative stay and a stay pending appeal on August 2, 2026.[20] The court denied both stay requests on August 10.[21] As such, the injunction remains in effect while the emergency proceedings continue in the US Court of Appeals for the 10thCircuit. At present, the briefing on whether the injunction should stay in place concluded on August 17 and a decision could be issued at any time—just days before the Fall 2026 college sports season is set to begin.[22]
Potential Impact on Athletes, Universities, and the NCAA
For student-athletes, Wisne provides a potentially significant opportunity for members of the Class of 2022 to gain an additional year of eligibility and the financial benefits that may come with it. However, those athletes and their institutions must remain cognizant of the preexisting limits from the House settlement, including transfer rules, roster limits, and compensation caps.
For universities, the decision creates immediate compliance and roster-management challenges. Institutions must determine whether a particular athlete is within the certified class; the effect of an athlete’s additional eligibility on roster availability; and whether participation by the athlete threatens the university's compliance with roster scholarship caps under the House settlement. Schools also should consider documenting the basis for any eligibility decision and preserving contingency plans if the injunction is stayed, narrowed, or reversed on appeal.
For the NCAA, the decision adds to a growing body of cases testing whether eligibility rules can withstand antitrust scrutiny in the new NIL and revenue-sharing era. The court's opinion canvassed multiple recent NCAA eligibility decisions, including cases addressing Division I labor markets, transfer eligibility, five-year rules, and junior college participation. Although not every court has reached the same result, Wisne underscores that these cases continue to build upon each other and affect litigation occurring across the country.
As eligibility challenges continue across the country, universities, conferences, the NCAA, and student-athletes should expect further uncertainty over roster planning, transfer timing, NIL opportunities, and the interaction between NCAA rules and court-ordered relief. Steptoe's Sports Integrity Team will continue to monitor developments in Wisne, the pending appeal, and related eligibility litigation affecting the college athletics landscape.
[1] Wisne v. NCAA, No. 1:26-cv-03063-CNS-KAS, ECF No. 38 at 1-5, 50 (D. Colo. July 31, 2026).
[2] Id. at 1-5.
[3] Wisne v. NCAA, No. 1:26-cv-03063-CNS-KAS, ECF No. 41 at 5 (D. Colo. Aug. 2, 2026); Wisne v. NCAA, No. 1:26-cv-03063-CNS-KAS, ECF No. 56 at 3 (D. Colo. Aug. 10, 2026).
[4] ECF No. 38 at 3–4; ECF No. 41 at 5.
[5] Meghan Durham Wright, Division I Adopts Age-Based Eligibility Model, NCAA (June 23, 2026), https://www.ncaa.org/division-i-adopts-age-based-eligibility-model/.
[6] ECF No. 38 at 4.
[7] ECF No. 38 at 4–5.
[8] Id. at 5, 45–50; ECF No. 41 at 3.
[9] ECF No. 38 at 1, 50.
[10] Id. at 18–20, 33–37.
[11] Id. at 37–45.
[12] ECF No. 41 at 3, 6.
[13] Id. at 5.
[14] ECF No. 56 at 15.
[15] Id. at 1, 6; ECF No. 56 at 3.
[16] ECF No. 41 at 3, 6.
[17] See generally, In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW (N.D. Cal.).
[18] Id. at 3–6; ECF No. 56 at 3.
[19] ECF No. 41 at 6; ECF No. 56 at 3.
[20] Wisne v. NCAA, No. 1:26-cv-03063-CNS-KAS, ECF No. 42 (D. Colo. Aug. 2, 2026); Wisne v. NCAA, No. 1:26-cv-03063-CNS-KAS, ECF No. 43 (D. Colo. Aug. 2, 2026).
[21] ECF No. 56 at 1, 16.
[22] Wisne v. NCAA, No. 26-1309, ECF No. 11 (10th Cir. Aug. 11, 2026).
