The text below was supplied by the Scoop Newsroom app. Third-party reporting is attributed in the source panel.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Rob Shelquist issued a statement calling the appeals court ruling procedural and “not a decision on the merits of the athletes’ antitrust claims.” “We are exploring every available option given the split in the panel’s ruling and remain committed to fighting for these college athletes whose opportunities and eligibility have been unfairly restricted,” he said. When the NCAA decided to have the rule kick in next year, it also grappled with that calculation, knowing it couldn’t be perfectly fair. “Fairness is in the eye of the beholder,” the NCAA argued in its legal brief in the appeals case. “Countless student-athletes already on campuses, and schools who built their rosters in reliance on the rules the NCAA’s membership wrote and agreed to follow, do not believe it is fair for thousands of formerly ineligible athletes to return to competition at the start of the 2026–27 season.”.
Breaking news moves fast. Follow @Will466513 on X for breaking news alerts. Follow on X →