The legal battle over NCAA eligibility took another dramatic turn Thursday when a Dallas judge signed an order preventing the NCAA, the Southeastern Conference and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey from blocking a group of athletes from returning to college sports for another season.
The temporary restraining order involves 41 athletes, including three players currently listed on NFL rosters: Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Jordan Hudson, Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Wesley Bissainthe and Chiefs wide receiver Omari Evans.
WNBA players Christeen Iwuala and Bailey Maupin, who signed contracts with WNBA teams earlier this summer, are also among the plaintiffs.
The Dallas ruling represents the latest challenge to the NCAA’s changing eligibility rules and could have significant consequences with the college football season now less than two weeks away.
Under Thursday’s order, the NCAA, SEC and Sankey cannot prevent the plaintiffs from returning to college sports because of transfer-portal restrictions or their previous time on professional rosters.
The order goes a step further by addressing the SEC’s ability to punish schools that attempt to sign the athletes. If the NCAA, SEC or Sankey believes one of the players should be prohibited from competing for another reason, they must return to court and present their argument before the judge.
That makes the Dallas case particularly significant. It is the first of the recent eligibility lawsuits to specifically block a conference from establishing or enforcing rules that could punish member schools for signing one of the plaintiffs.
The ruling comes just days after all four power conferences voted to adopt similar rules prohibiting teams from playing athletes who have previously signed professional sports contracts.
The conference rules were largely a response to the growing number of lawsuits challenging the NCAA’s eligibility policies. College officials have expressed concern that allowing professional athletes to return to college could create a permanent two-way path between professional and college sports.
Under that scenario, an athlete could leave college for a professional opportunity and potentially return to school if that professional career does not work out. The latest court ruling puts another obstacle in the way of conferences attempting to prevent that possibility.
The controversy stems largely from an eligibility change approved by the NCAA in June. The NCAA changed its rules to allow athletes to compete for five seasons within a five-year period. The previous system generally allowed four seasons of competition during a five-year window.
That change created a group of athletes who had already exhausted their eligibility under the previous rules but could potentially qualify for another season under the new system.
However, the NCAA’s Division I board of directors voted to prevent those outgoing seniors from returning for a fifth season, arguing that allowing them back would take roster opportunities away from incoming freshmen.
More than 100 athletes have since joined lawsuits challenging the decision. In numerous cases, judges have issued temporary restraining orders allowing athletes to compete while their legal challenges move forward.
The legal landscape remains fluid. Although athletes have secured temporary orders in several cases, the NCAA has successfully appealed and overturned restraining orders in three cases during the past week.
That creates an increasingly complicated situation for schools and athletes attempting to determine who will actually be eligible when the season begins.
With college football returning in full force in little more than a week, coaches and athletic departments are being forced to navigate eligibility decisions that can change from one court ruling to the next.
The newest wrinkle involves athletes who already made the jump to professional sports. The plaintiffs who signed professional contracts this summer argue that they may have made different decisions if they had known the NCAA was preparing to change its eligibility rules.
Their argument is essentially that they should not be punished for pursuing professional opportunities under the rules that existed when they made those decisions.
The Louisiana case involving LSU helped push the issue into an entirely new phase last week. A judge in East Baton Rouge signed a restraining order that opened the door for several players, including tight end Dae’Quan Wright and defensive lineman Zxavian Harris, to leave NFL rosters and pursue a return to LSU.
That decision triggered an immediate response from the SEC and the other power conferences, which moved quickly to adopt rules designed to discourage schools from signing former professional players.
The Dallas ruling could now lead to another round of litigation. Downton, who represents athletes in the Louisiana case, told ESPN that his legal team plans to file an amendment seeking another court order that would prevent the conference-level ban on professional players.
That means the dispute is no longer simply about whether athletes deserve an additional season of eligibility. It is also becoming a battle over whether conferences can create their own restrictions to counter court orders involving NCAA eligibility.
For college sports, the timing could hardly be more chaotic. With the football season approaching and rosters largely assembled, courts, the NCAA and conferences are fighting over rules that can directly determine which athletes are allowed to take the field.
Thursday’s Dallas order gives another group of players a path back to college competition, but it is unlikely to be the final word. As more athletes join the lawsuits and conferences defend their new restrictions, the NCAA’s eligibility fight is rapidly becoming one of the most consequential legal battles in the modern era of college athletics.
