Charles Bediako, the 23-year-old Alabama basketball center, appeared in a Tuscaloosa County courtroom Friday morning for an injunction hearing regarding his NCAA eligibility. The hearing lasted slightly over an hour as Bediako seeks both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief following the NCAA’s decision last month to declare him ineligible to return to college basketball. Judge Daniel Pruet is expected to issue a ruling soon after hearing arguments from both sides, with the parties requested to submit proposed orders by 4 p.m. Central Time.
Arguments Presented During Hearing
During the hearing, defense attorney David Holt detailed Bediako’s professional income, explaining that the former NBA G League player earned $530,000 over three years. Holt argued this financial background establishes that Bediako faces potential irreparable harm if barred from playing college basketball, given that any NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) earnings at Alabama remain uncertain and reliant on his season exposure. Holt also warned,
“may never have the opportunity to compete again.”
He further pointed out that, without the injunction, Bediako could be unable to finish his degree at Alabama due to prohibitive tuition costs.
Judge Pruet pressed Holt on the broader consequences of ruling against the NCAA, questioning the possible impact on college sports regulations. In response, Holt acknowledged NCAA enforcement but criticized it as arbitrary in this case.
NCAA’s Position on Bediako’s Eligibility Case
Representing the NCAA, lawyer Taylor Askew contended that Bediako’s lawsuit centers on financial issues rather than academic concerns and characterized an injunction as an “extraordinary remedy.” Askew warned that granting the injunction could trigger “50 more lawsuits” and “chaos” across NCAA governance. He emphasized that Bediako’s combined playing time—two years in Alabama’s program and two years in the G League—fully exhausts his eligibility under NCAA rules. Askew also highlighted that international players, like Bediako, require distinct eligibility assessments.
The hearing included an extended private discussion focused on Alabama antitrust law and claims of tortious interference. Judge Pruet questioned Askew about the NCAA’s differentiation between professional players and current college athletes who now receive compensation through revenue sharing and NIL agreements. The judge also referenced recent changes following the House v. NCAA settlement and the February 2024 injunction awarded to Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia.
Temporary Relief and Upcoming Impact on Alabama’s Season
While a formal decision is anticipated imminently, Pruet clarified that any delay in his ruling does not affect the existing temporary restraining order for Bediako, which will remain in effect through February 10. This order currently permits the 7-foot center to participate in Alabama’s upcoming road game against rival Auburn on Saturday, an important matchup with significant implications for the team’s season.
Potential Consequences of the Ruling for College Athletics
The outcome of this case could influence how eligibility and compensation policies apply to other collegiate athletes with professional experience, possibly reshaping NCAA enforcement standards. A ruling favoring Bediako might prompt legal challenges to current regulations, while a decision for the NCAA could reinforce the association’s authority over eligibility criteria. For Alabama and Bediako, the verdict will determine whether the center can continue contributing on the court and progress academically.
There was not much of a hint from judge Daniel Pruet on which way he would rule. He heard arguments from both sides before calling all attorneys to the bench for a private conversation, then adjourning. He asked for any proposed orders from attorneys to be filed by 4 p.m. CT. https://t.co/6WtSb0Y2AC
— Mike Rodak (@mikerodak) February 6, 2026
Pruet pressed Bediako's attorney David Holt on the idea that he needs an injunction to avoid suffering irreparable harm. Pruet said the reasons for the harm laid out by Bediako's attorneys could have been avoided by him staying out of the draft in 2023. He said the other reason,…
— Mike Rodak (@mikerodak) February 6, 2026
NCAA attorney Taylor Askew said the case is "about money" — and not academics — if we're being "intellectually honest," and he still has opportunities to compete even if he is not allowed to play at Alabama.
Askew said an injunction is an "extraordinary remedy" and cited other…
— Mike Rodak (@mikerodak) February 6, 2026
