LARA WEISS—In February 2026, a state court ruling on Alabama basketball player Charles Bediako’s eligibility became a focal point in the national battle over the line between college and professional sports. The case reflects a growing trend of athletes taking eligibility fights to court. As college sports increasingly resemble commercial disputes, courts face pressure to act quickly to preserve their legitimacy as their rulings reshape the future of the NCAA itself.
Bediako played for the University of Alabama from 2021 to 2023 before leaving school and declaring for the 2023 NBA Draft to pursue a professional career. He went undrafted and signed a two-way contract with the San Antonio Spurs. Despite not playing in an NBA game, Bediako suited up for three different G League teams over the span of three seasons. He then made history as the first player with college experience to sign an NBA contract and return to college basketball, re-enrolling at Alabama to regain his NCAA eligibility in a college sports landscape reshaped by NIL and revenue sharing. When the NCAA denied Alabama’s request, Bediako sued, arguing that the eligibility rules were being applied inconsistently and no longer reflected the economic realities of modern college sports.
A Tuscaloosa County circuit judge initially granted Bediako a temporary restraining order, which allowed him to immediately rejoin Alabama’s roster while the court considered longer-term injunctive relief. During that brief window, Bediako played in five games for the Crimson Tide, including a rivalry win over Auburn. decision in Bediako’s favor placed the judiciary squarely in the middle of a high-stakes eligibility dispute with national implications and sparked controversy not only for its effect on the basketball season, but also because of the judge who issued it. The NCAA moved for recusal after learning that the judge had donated to the University of Alabama and appeared on the Crimson Tide Foundation’s public donor list, arguing that the connection created the appearance of partiality. Judge James H. Roberts Jr. soon after recused himself, and the case was reassigned. Even without evidence of actual bias, the optics of a judge with financial ties to one of the parties threatened to undermine confidence in the fairness of the proceedings.
The case was then transferred to Tuscaloosa Circuit Judge Daniel Pruet. After a hearing, Judge Pruet denied Bediako’s request for a preliminary injunction and dissolved the temporary restraining order. In a written order, the court found that Bediako had not met the high bar for injunctive relief. The court rejected the argument that losing NIL income, revenue-sharing opportunities, or the “college experience” amounted to irreparable harm, noting that lost income can be measured and compensated. Judge Pruet also warned that granting emergency relief would undermine long-standing NCAA eligibility rules and invite similar lawsuits nationwide.
The ruling marked a significant victory for the NCAA at a time when its eligibility rules were under sustained pressure. NCAA President Charlie Baker framed the case as an attempt by former professionals to “pivot back” into college sports, warning that such reversals risk displacing younger student-athletes. The NCAA emphasized that, unlike recent waiver recipients, Bediako had already played college basketball and signed a professional contract. That distinction, the NCAA argued, is meant to preserve the boundary between college and professional sports. The decision sets a precedent that could shape future court challenges as former professionals—including former UCLA guard Amari Bailey —explore returning to college athletics.
The Bediako case is part of a broader shift: eligibility disputes that once remained inside the NCAA are now being decided outside in courtrooms. Bediako’s lawsuit is part of a recent growing wave of challenges brought by athletes seeking immediate eligibility during an active season. While Bediako was the first professional player to return to college, he is not the only athlete seeking additional eligibility through the court system. The court’s refusal to grant him an injunction could have implications for other athletes in similar cases.
This shift places heightened importance on judicial legitimacy. Preliminary injunctions can have major implications beyond the fate of the athlete seeking relief. The injunctions reshape rotations, competitive balance, and even conference races. While the temporary restraining order was in place, Bediako appeared in five games for Alabama, averaging 10 points, 4.6 rebounds, and 1.4 blocks in meaningful minutes that counted toward the team’s season. Once those games are played, the competitive effects cannot be undone. When courts intervene in this way, even the appearance of partiality can cast a long shadow over the process.
Ultimately, the Bediako case shows that the NCAA no longer has the final word on eligibility. Judges are now being asked to step in and, in real ways, shape how college sports operate. As athletes continue to challenge eligibility rules in court, judges’ rulings will increasingly shape who gets to play, how teams are built, and how college athletics are governed. Whether courts can maintain both speed and legitimacy in this rapidly evolving landscape remains an open question. Eligibility is no longer just an internal NCAA question. It is being tested in court, and these rulings will help define what “college sports” looks like going forward.
