Judges sound a skeptical note about players arguments in key college eligibility case

Meanwhile, the attorney representing athletes in a key case regarding the NCAA's new five-year eligibility rule took a series of questions Tuesday from federal judges who sounded skeptical regarding the players' ability to pinpoint the depth of the economic harm they have.

What happened

For context, a lower-court judge in the case, Wisne vs. NCAA, initially ruled in favor of the players, granting all NCAA athletes who graduated high school in 2022 a fifth year of eligibility for this school year after the NCAA had excluded them from the new rule.

For context, an appeals court blocked that ruling and its full hearing came in front of a three-judge panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. It will rule at a afterwards date. All three asked multiple questions to plaintiff attorney Robert Shelquist over the plaintiffs' attempts to define the market for the players.

The bottom line

In short, judges sound a skeptical note about players arguments in key college eligibility is the central thread here, and readers can expect follow-up reporting as the picture becomes clearer.