For at least the next two weeks, Division I athletes who have transferred more than once will be immediately eligible to continue their NCAA careers thanks to a ruling from a West Virginia judge.
Judge John P. Bailey granted a 14-day temporary restraining order on Wednesday preventing the NCAA from enforcing its current policy that requires athletes transferring for a second time or more to sit out a year if they have not secured a waiver. A hearing was held in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on Wednesday after West Virginia basketball player RaeQuan Battle and seven different state attorney generals filed separate lawsuits seeking an end to the NCAA’s transfer policy.
“As a result of today’s decision impacting Division I student-athletes, the association will not enforce the year in residency requirement for multiple-time transfers and will begin notifying members schools,” the NCAA said in a statement on Wednesday.
Battle and two other transferring athletes — Miami (Ohio) quarterback Maddox Kopp and Cincinnati basketball player Jamile Reynolds — testified during the hearing as to why they should have been granted waivers. Battle and Kopp transferred a second time after the head coach left for another job while Reynolds departed for his own safety. Coaches and other students who are not NCAA athletes are not subject to the same eligibility restrictions upon switching schools.
A more permanent ruling is expected on Dec. 27, when a preliminary injunction hearing will take place.
Last summer, the NCAA Division I Council endorsed a recommendation that would have allowed college athletes to transfer an unlimited amount of times without losing eligibility. But at the 2023 NCAA Convention in January, the organization took a step in the opposite direction by limiting eligibility for second-time transfers.
Undergraduate athletes now must meet a strict set of criteria in order to receive a waiver to transfer more than once. Second-time transfers will have to provide proof of a physical injury, mental health condition, or other “exigent circumstances that clearly necessitate” an immediate departure, such as abuse or sexual assault. Notably, academics are no longer an accepted reason to transfer. Additionally, those seeking to transfer for athletic reasons such as a lack of playing time or position preference will not be granted waivers either.
Last fall, the NCAA also made it more difficult to transfer with its implementation of two-month windows to enter the portal, which shortened to 45 days this year. A few months ago in September, former North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Robert Orr wrote an op-ed arguing that the NCAA’s transfer policy violates antitrust law.
“Administrators, coaches, professors, other students, literally everybody, can jump to a new school with no punitive limitation – except students wanting to play college sports governed by the NCAA,” Orr wrote.
Its good that the government gets involved in sports. Because they do a fantastic job with everything else…
Reynolds departed for his own safety
—
Any story behind this?
Why the athletes didn’t have freedom to move as they wish is beyond me. Seems so simple… You choose how you want to proceed in life, make mistakes, etc
Mostly because they sign a contract. That said, since Curt Flood challenged the reserve clause in baseball, sports has been on an march to total “free agency”. The only way around it is to blow up the NCAA and form truly independent teams that compete against each other. Unfortunately, I believe it is coming and will be great for football and basketball but will take funding from non-revenue sports. Envision a Florida State board need meeting where they vote to eliminate most sports to keep their football team competitive if forced to stay in the ACC. The ACC is doomed due to there revenue problems that can’t be fixed.
Because they signed a contract. This will be good for revenue sports and bad for conferences that have low revenue like ACC/Big 12.
Most athletes aren’t on scholarship so no contract. Are scholarships for 1 year guaranteed or 4?
If you are a walk on transfer rules are different and more accommodating Many schools provide “books” scholarships to non revenue sports that still is a contract
When you commit, you sign two documents a grant in aid document and a National Letter of Intent. They form the basis of an athletic commitment and compensation they receive in return. Provided they are 18, it forms a contract. Courts have addressed issues outside of these commitments to allow transfers.
If you doubt it is a contract, why do athletes still get compensated if they suffer a career ending injury (they are converted to a non athletic scholarship).
ummm…. a scholarship is not a contract at all.
Scholarships can be contracts, but they don’t have to be.
National Letters of Intent, which are often attached to athletic scholarships, are contracts.
They can have the freedom if they pay for their tuition fees and not take the scholarship offered by college
In the corporate world, businesses typically make employees non-compete agreements. So there’s that…
Seems like at some point the NCAA can no longer make rules to attempt to apply some fairness or trying to protect or ensure athletes have time to consider their mental health.
What necessitates the courts getting involved in athlete transfers?
Is the reason because colleges are government institutions?
Has a lot to do with the organization’s monopolistic status. That monopoly only fits if it’s regulated.
It looks like in this case, three athletes filed a lawsuit against the NCAA to be allowed to play this season or to regain a year of eligibility that they lost due to the sit-out policy.
The lawsuit appears to be under anti-trust laws. Federal anti-trust laws prohibit organizations from acting as a monopoly, or using near-monopoly status to thwart competition. The NCAA is close to a monopoly on college athletics, so if the NCAA has a rule that’s “anticompetitive,” it may violate federal law, and the court can put a stop to it. In this case, the Court found the rule limiting the number of times an athlete can transfer limits competition among schools for athletes, which is… Read more »
I am not versed in legalese, so please bear with me. Wouldn’t NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL all be in the similar situation, that these governing bodies are acting like anticompetitive monopolies? I am seeing NCAA not as a business, but like SEC, setting guidelines and regulations under which the college athletics can operate. So if this is overturned, will this lead to a “free agent” market NCAA style? A football player recruited to play for GT can sign with Alabama the second year because UA pays a lot more. Then third year signs with FSU, and fourth with UM. Make $20M for those 4 years before signing another $100M with the Cowboys?
The difference is that the professional leagues you referenced have collectively bargained terms of employment including free agency. There is certainly a school of thought in collegiate athletics right now being freely promoted by lawyers involved that collegiate athletes may be heading toward some sort of collective bargaining in the future.
I’m not an anti-trust lawyer or a sports lawyer, so I don’t really know, but my guess is that the pro leagues’ rules are very carefully crafted to comply with anti-trust rules. A monopoly isn’t inherently illegal—it becomes illegal if it takes advantage of its monopoly status to thwart competition. So, I’m guessing that the pro leagues’ set their rules up to say by having x rule, the league is more competitive/fair.