Ninth Circuit ends NCAA eligibility appeal without ruling on five-year rule

The Ninth Circuit dismissed the NCAA’s consolidated appeals involving former college football players Cortez Braham and Tatuo Martinson on September 9, ending one procedural fight over sixth-year eligibility without deciding whether the NCAA’s five-year rule violates antitrust law.

In Braham v. NCAA, the court held that the appeals were moot because the preliminary injunctions allowing the players to compete during the 2025 season had expired. The season was over, and both players’ collegiate careers had ended, so the NCAA could no longer obtain effective relief in those appeals.

What the players challenged

Braham and Martinson began their college careers at junior colleges in 2019 before transferring to NCAA Division I programs. They had completed the five-year eligibility period recognized by the NCAA’s rules and sought permission to play a sixth season during the 2025 college football season.

The players argued that counting their junior-college enrollment toward the five-year period was anticompetitive under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. They also sought protection from penalties that could have been imposed on schools allowing them to play.

Federal district courts granted preliminary injunctions, and both players competed during the 2025 season. The NCAA appealed those orders to the Ninth Circuit.

Why the appeals became moot

The Ninth Circuit said the injunctions had run their course. Because the 2025 season had concluded and the players could not return to college football, reversing the injunctions would not provide meaningful relief to the NCAA in these appeals.

The NCAA argued that the dispute should remain active because other athletes could bring similar lawsuits. The panel rejected that argument, explaining that the exception for disputes that are “capable of repetition yet evading review” generally requires a reasonable expectation that the same plaintiffs will face the same alleged injury again.

Braham and Martinson had exhausted their college football eligibility, and the NCAA did not show that either player was likely to seek another injunction. The possibility of future lawsuits by different athletes was not enough to keep these particular appeals alive.

The panel dismissed the appeals as moot and vacated the district-court orders under the Munsingwear doctrine, which can remove a lower-court judgment when a case becomes moot while on appeal through circumstances outside the parties’ control.

What the ruling did not decide

The Ninth Circuit did not rule on whether the NCAA’s five-year eligibility rule is lawful under federal antitrust law. It did not strike down, uphold or suspend the rule nationwide.

The NCAA’s current Division I and Division II framework generally uses a five-year eligibility period. Under the current rule text, that period begins with the earlier of the academic term in which an athlete first enrolls full time and attends class at a collegiate institution or the beginning of the academic year after the athlete’s 19th birthday. The NCAA rule expressly includes two-year colleges in the enrollment trigger.

The NCAA’s transition guidance says eligibility treatment can depend on when an athlete enrolled and whether the athlete had eligibility remaining under the previous rules. Some current athletes may receive the more favorable result under either the prior framework or the age-based rules, while athletes first enrolling in fall 2027 or later are generally subject to the age-based system.

Those provisions were not changed by the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The ruling was limited to the expired injunctions and the appeals involving Braham and Martinson.

What comes next

The broader eligibility dispute remains active. The College Sports Litigation Tracker’s September 9 and September 11 updates list other cases involving athletes seeking additional seasons, temporary restraints or preliminary injunctions against the NCAA.

For athletes, coaches and compliance offices, the practical effect is limited but important: the decision removes one appellate case from the docket, but it does not answer whether counting junior-college enrollment toward the eligibility clock violates federal antitrust law. Further developments will come from rulings, injunctions, appeals or settlements in the remaining cases.

Sources

Look for updates to this story

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.