Do NCAA eligibility rules give Class of 2022 athletes fifth-year eligibility?

What the Tenth Circuit decided in Wisne v. NCAA

The Tenth Circuit reversed and vacated the preliminary injunction that had allowed the plaintiffs and the certified class to compete for a fifth Division I season. The certified class was all Division I athletes who began their collegiate athletic careers in the 2022-23 academic year and competed in four straight seasons of intercollegiate athletics. The panel, made up of Judges Carolyn B. McHugh, Paul J. Kelly Jr. and Nancy L. Moritz, decided an appeal from a preliminary injunction, a temporary order made before a full trial. The court did not decide whether every NCAA eligibility rule is legal or whether every athlete ultimately loses an antitrust claim.

The plaintiffs were athletes who entered college in 2022 and competed in four straight seasons of intercollegiate athletics. Their fourth and final season under the old rule was at a Division I school in 2025-26. They said the NCAA's refusal to apply its new five-for-five framework backward to them illegally restricted a labor market. That is an antitrust claim, not a general ruling on grades, amateur status, transfers, or team eligibility decisions.

The result is important because a preliminary injunction can change the season while a case is pending. Here, the court ended the nationwide order without making a final decision on whether each athlete can play. A lawyer who handles appeals can explain the difference between a preliminary order and a final merits ruling in a particular case.

Why the players lost this nationwide injunction

The players lost this injunction because their proposed market covered all Division I athletics in the United States, and the panel found that market unsupported. Before weighing whether the NCAA rule was fair under antitrust law, the court needed the athletes to clearly identify the job market affected by the rule.

The opinion's practical point is simple. A football player looking for a Division I roster spot does not treat a school without football as an equivalent option, and a basketball player does not treat a hockey roster as an equivalent option. The court said a proper market likely would include multiple universities with a Division I program in the athlete's sport, but not all Division I athletics in the United States.

That is why the court did not go further and decide whether the rule itself violated antitrust law. It rejected the proposed all-Division-I market and did not decide whether a differently defined market would support a claim. For an athlete, the careful reading is narrower than a headline saying the NCAA won every eligibility fight.

Which NCAA eligibility rules were at issue

The dispute was about the shift from four seasons of Division I competition in a five-year period to a new rule that, in most cases, permits five seasons in five years. The NCAA did not apply the change retroactively to athletes who had already used four seasons under the earlier rule. The court records the NCAA's position that an extra season for those athletes could disrupt settled roster expectations and playing time for others.

This case involves Division I participation only. It does not settle initial eligibility for a recruit, academic eligibility after enrollment, or the rules for Division II and Division III. Those distinctions matter more than the shorthand phrase five-year rule. If your school, conference, or a governing body made a separate decision, a lawyer who handles entertainment and sports law may be able to help.

What changes now, and what does not

What changes now is the nationwide federal injunction that had covered the Wisne plaintiffs and the certified class. The Tenth Circuit had already stayed that injunction during the appeal, and its November 6 opinion reverses the Colorado trial court's July 31 order.

What does not change automatically is every eligibility question. The Tenth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' proposed market definition at the preliminary-injunction stage; it did not decide the later antitrust questions or whether the NCAA rule is lawful in every setting.

Who is covered, what the court actually ordered, and what stage the case reached can matter as much as the headline result.

How the fifth-year case got here

The timing matters because some 2026-27 seasons were already underway when the court acted. The opinion does not set a universal deadline for every athlete.

1. July 31, 2026

   The Colorado district court [granted a preliminary injunction](source:district) for the plaintiffs and the certified class of Division I athletes who began in 2022-23 and competed in four straight seasons of intercollegiate athletics.

2. August 21, 2026

   The Tenth Circuit [granted the NCAA's motion to stay the injunction](source:stay) while the appeal proceeded.

3. November 6, 2026

   The Tenth Circuit reversed and vacated the preliminary injunction.

What an affected athlete should verify next

Those details help show whether this decision applies to you. Check the exact order and your school's current decision.

1. Whether the athlete was a Wisne plaintiff or met the certified-class definition: a Division I athlete who began a collegiate athletic career in 2022-23 and competed in four straight seasons of intercollegiate athletics.
2. The exact sport, school, entry year, seasons already used, and rule the school is applying.
3. Whether any state or federal order names the athlete, the school, or a defined group, and whether a court has temporarily put that order on hold, reversed it, or changed it.
4. The school's current eligibility decision and any deadline it has given for roster, transfer, or competition paperwork.