For years, the NCAA followed a rule that gave college athletes five years to compete in four seasons. Those who wanted to sit out a season could use a redshirt year and still retain four seasons of competition within those five years. However, in June 2026, the governing body introduced a new eligibility model that allowed athletes to compete in five seasons over five years. The change left several athletes questioning why they could not benefit from the same rule. Some took the matter to court, challenging the NCAA’s decision. Now, months later, the latest court ruling has handed the NCAA a major victory in that battle.

On November 6, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the NCAA, reversing a lower court decision that had temporarily allowed the affected athletes to compete for a fifth season. The three-judge panel also vacated the nationwide preliminary injunction issued in July, removing the legal protection that had briefly opened the door for Class of 2022 athletes to return to college sports.

The case, known as Brock Wisne et al. v. NCAA, centered on whether the NCAA could refuse to extend its new five-season eligibility model to athletes who had already used all four seasons under the previous rules. The plaintiffs argued that the decision unfairly treated their recruiting class and prevented them from receiving the same opportunities as athletes entering college under the new system. They also claimed that being denied another season cost them potential earnings from college sports, including name, image and likeness opportunities.

However, the appeals court found a major weakness in the athletes’ antitrust arguments. Their lawsuit relied on Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits certain agreements that unlawfully restrict trade. The judges focused on how the plaintiffs had defined the relevant labor market, which included all NCAA Division I athletics across the country. The panel found that the athletes had not provided enough evidence to establish that all sports and universities belonged to one common market.

Judge Carolyn McHugh explained the problem through the example of a football player searching for a college roster spot. She wrote, “Obviously, a football player looking for a Division I roster spot would not view the 101 schools without a football program as reasonably good substitutes.” The judges argued that athletes competing in different sports do not necessarily seek the same opportunities or have the same potential employers. The court also pointed to the differences between men’s and women’s sports and the availability of professional alternatives when examining the proposed market.

The panel made its position clear in its written opinion, stating, “We conclude that Plaintiffs’ proposed labor market, all of NCAA Division I athletics in the United States, lacks evidentiary support.” This failure to properly establish the relevant market weakened the plaintiffs’ case and led the appeals court to reverse the lower court’s decision. The ruling addressed the preliminary injunction rather than bringing every possible legal challenge to the NCAA’s eligibility policy to an end.

The NCAA welcomed the outcome, with chief legal officer Scott Bearby informing member institutions about the decision in a memo on Friday. “Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction in Wisne v. NCAA and vacated the injunction in full,” he wrote. Bearby also highlighted the potential effect of granting additional seasons to athletes who had already completed four years of competition, arguing that such changes could “destabilize rosters and disrupt the settled expectations of student-athletes regarding roster spots and playing time.”

The dispute had initially taken a different turn in July, when Colorado federal judge Charlotte Sweeney granted a nationwide preliminary injunction in favor of the athletes. The order temporarily required the NCAA to allow the plaintiffs to compete for another season while their case continued. The governing body challenged that decision, and the 10th Circuit paused the injunction in August before delivering its latest ruling on November 6.

In the final section of its opinion, the appeals court stated, “We therefore REVERSE the district court’s order granting Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, and we VACATE the injunction.” And now, this decision has reached beyond basketball and football, affecting athletes across several college sports who had hoped to return for another season.

NCAA ruling leaves Levi Haines’ Penn State return in doubt

One of the most notable names is Penn State wrestling star Levi Haines, who was affected by this new ruling. Haines had completed four seasons of college competition without taking a redshirt year, but he was hoping to return for the 2026-27 campaign and pursue a third NCAA championship. He finished the 2025-26 season unbeaten at 26-0, capturing the 174-pound national title for the second time in his career. However, the NCAA’s new five-year, five-season eligibility system did not automatically grant him another year. He had already used all four seasons available to him under the previous rules.

Although Haines was not one of the original named plaintiffs in Wisne v. NCAA, the nationwide injunction issued in July had briefly raised the possibility of a fifth season. Penn State also remained hopeful that its two-time national champion could return. Head coach Cael Sanderson made no secret of the program’s position. Speaking to FloWrestling, he said, “Obviously we’d love to have Levi back another year, so I’m going to lean into that. Like, yeah, let’s go.” Sanderson also questioned the timing of the NCAA’s eligibility change, saying, “You’re making a rule change midstream in kids’ careers, so I think that’s tough to do.”

The uncertainty continued into October. Haines remained enrolled at Penn State and continued preparing in case he received another opportunity to compete. During the team’s media day on October 20, Sanderson admitted that the coaching staff had no clearer picture of the situation than anyone else.

“We don’t find out anything any faster than anyone else does. We read about things in the news, and it’s like, ‘Oh, this has changed, and this might change,'” Sanderson said. He confirmed that Haines was attending classes and staying ready, adding, “He’s in class right now. He’d probably rather not be in class, but he’s preparing just in case he gets that opportunity.”

Haines was also training with the Nittany Lion Wrestling Club as he prepared for the Senior World Championships in freestyle wrestling. Sanderson believed his wrestler could make the switch back to college folkstyle if the opportunity came.  The November 6 ruling has now left Haines without a clear path back to Penn State for the 2026-27 season. Since he does not have a separate court order protecting his eligibility, he would need to pursue another legal challenge to seek an additional season.