The NCAA approved a "five-for-five" eligibility rule in June 2026, giving Division I athletes five continuous years of competition starting from enrollment. It left out one class entirely. Athletes who started college in 2022 and played four straight seasons through spring 2026 got nothing under the new model — while every cohort before them received COVID-era extensions and every cohort after them gets five years by design. On July 31, U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney blocked the exclusion, issuing a nationwide injunction requiring the NCAA to give the Class of 2022 a fifth year. The NCAA appealed and asked her to pause the ruling while the Tenth Circuit decides the case. On August 10, she refused. Fall camp is underway, and the athletes are eligible — for now.

The Class of 2022 Fell Through the Cracks

They were cut out of two eligibility systems in a row. The court agreed.

Every class around them got more. Athletes who enrolled from 2017 to 2021 received COVID-era extensions. Athletes entering college this fall get five years as the baseline. The Class of 2022 competed alongside COVID fifth-years, then graduated as the class behind them got five years guaranteed. Lead plaintiff Brock Wisne, a University of Northern Colorado basketball player, argued in court that the exclusion violated federal antitrust law: the NCAA arbitrarily denied his cohort earning potential, playing time, and NIL compensation without justification.

Judge Sweeney sided with the athletes at every step. She found they would suffer "irreparable harm," that the rule "likely violates federal antitrust law," and that the exclusion "would reduce output and decrease wages." When the NCAA asked her to pause the ruling while it appeals, she said no — writing in her August 10 denial that the chaos the NCAA described was "a bind of its own making," the result of "the NCAA's own business judgment" in designing the rule. Plaintiff attorney Rob Shelquist was direct: "The chaos they are talking about could have been avoided if they had passed the rule earlier."

Real athletes are acting on the ruling now. Thomas Castellanos, the former Florida State quarterback, has explored returning for a fifth season. So has Texas lineman Cole Hutson, who went undrafted and trained for the NFL without signing a pro contract. Texas head coach Steve Sarkisian said of Hutson: "If we're fortunate enough to have him back, it'd be great."

But the NCAA Says the Court Created the Chaos

The association argues that courts can't govern rosters mid-season without breaking promises already made to freshmen on campus.

Fifth-year returnees are taking spots programs had already promised to incoming freshmen. Programs locked in their 2026-27 rosters months before the July 31 ruling. NCAA chief legal officer Scott Bearby said the injunction was "egregiously wrong" — issued "with virtually no evidence, and without witness testimony or even so much as a hearing" — and that it "irreparably harms thousands of student-athletes already on campus." One football assistant described what coaches are navigating right now: "assembling a plane at 30,000 feet. While on fire."

There's one court left that can pause this. After Sweeney denied the stay on August 10, the NCAA asked the Tenth Circuit for emergency relief. The appeals court on August 11 ordered expedited briefing — a response from the athletes is due August 14 — but has not granted or denied the stay. NCAA President Charlie Baker says Congress, not the courts, needs to fix this: "Today's rulings and the chaos they bring to college sports are exactly why it's time to pass this bill." UConn basketball coach Dan Hurley put it in unambiguous terms on social media: "Somebody please come and fix College Sports. It's a complete [expletive] show."

So the Conferences Are Betting on Congress

The SEC and Big Ten opposed the bill through June. They flipped the same night the injunction came down.

A bill in Congress would end these lawsuits permanently. The Protect College Sports Act (PCSA), led by Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA), passed the Senate Commerce Committee 19-9 in June. It would grant the NCAA a limited antitrust exemption — meaning athletes couldn't challenge eligibility rules the way Wisne challenged this one. Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the bill August 5. The Senate then adjourned for recess without a floor vote.

The reversal came the same night as the injunction. The SEC and Big Ten had formally opposed the PCSA through their June 18 joint statement. On July 31 — the same night Judge Sweeney's injunction came down — they announced support, citing stronger NIL enforcement language and a $27.5 million financial allotment. Baker framed the situation as existential: "Without targeted intervention from Congress, college sports cannot set nationwide rules everyone can play by."

Though the PCSA Has Its Own Critics

Labor groups and the Congressional Black Caucus say an antitrust exemption would harm athletes in the long run.

Antitrust law is the only weapon athletes have against the NCAA. The Wisne lawsuit exists because courts will review NCAA eligibility rules as potential restraints on trade. The AFL-CIO formally opposed the PCSA on August 5, arguing the exemption would shield the NCAA from exactly these kinds of athlete challenges — giving it power to enforce labor conditions without competitive accountability. The Congressional Black Caucus also publicly opposed the bill. The American Action Forum, a center-right policy group, made the same structural argument from a different direction: the PCSA's exemption is too broad and removes market pressure on the NCAA to improve conditions.

If the PCSA passes, the next class loses its lawsuit. The Wisne injunction works because antitrust law applies to the NCAA. That's both the athletes' legal leverage and what the bill would eliminate. Notre Dame men's lacrosse coach Kevin Corrigan put it in scope terms: "This is a football and basketball issue that they turned into an everybody issue." The PCSA would put that dispute permanently in the NCAA's hands — or close the door on future lawsuits entirely.

Where This Lands

The Class of 2022 has their ruling, and it's holding for now. The Tenth Circuit decides whether they actually play this season — the court could act before the first game. The longer fight is the PCSA: if Congress passes it, the NCAA gets a permanent antitrust shield and closes the door on lawsuits like this one, taking away the tool that just gave thousands of athletes what the NCAA denied them.

Sources