The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled against a group of student-athletes in the case of Wisne v. NCAA, docket number 26-1309. The court's decision reverses a lower court's order that would have allowed these athletes to compete for a fifth season in NCAA Division I sports. This ruling affects not only the plaintiffs but also sets a precedent that could impact the NCAA's eligibility rules for student-athletes across the nation.

The plaintiffs in this case are a group of student-athletes who completed four seasons of NCAA Division I competition. They argued that the NCAA's decision to not apply a new eligibility rule retroactively was an illegal restraint of trade under the Sherman Act. This case is significant as it highlights ongoing tensions between college athletics and antitrust laws, particularly regarding student-athlete rights and compensation.

Background

The plaintiffs, including Brock Wisne and Aidan Shaw, filed their lawsuit against the NCAA after the organization adopted a new rule in June 2026. This rule allowed eligible Division I athletes to compete for up to five seasons within a five-year period. However, the NCAA chose not to apply this new rule retroactively to those who had already competed for four seasons under the old rule. The plaintiffs contended that this decision was unfair and limited their ability to participate in college athletics, which they argued constituted an illegal restraint of trade.

The case escalated to the Tenth Circuit after the district court granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, ordering the NCAA to allow them to compete for a fifth season. The NCAA appealed this decision, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their claims under antitrust law.

The Ruling

The Tenth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the NCAA, reversing the district court's decision. The court found that the plaintiffs' proposed labor market definition, which encompassed all of NCAA Division I athletics, lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The ruling stated, "Because a market defined as all Division I athletics in the United States is not plausible, the district court clearly erred in accepting Plaintiffs’ market definition." This ruling was made by Circuit Judges McHugh, Kelly, and Moritz.

The court emphasized that the NCAA is not the employer of the student-athletes, but rather the individual universities that comprise the NCAA. The judges noted that the athletes do not view all Division I programs as interchangeable, which further undermined the plaintiffs' claims. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not adequately defined the relevant market, which is essential for any antitrust claim.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for student-athletes and the NCAA. By rejecting the broad market definition proposed by the plaintiffs, the Tenth Circuit has reinforced the NCAA's position regarding its eligibility rules. This decision could discourage similar lawsuits in the future, as it sets a precedent that emphasizes the importance of a well-defined market in antitrust cases involving college sports.

The ruling also highlights the complexities of the evolving landscape of college athletics, particularly with the introduction of NIL (name, image, likeness) compensation. As college sports continue to adapt to new financial realities, the legal challenges surrounding athlete compensation and eligibility are likely to persist.

What's Next

While the Tenth Circuit's ruling is final, the plaintiffs may consider appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case will likely influence future discussions about student-athlete rights and the NCAA's regulatory framework.