Former professional basketball players, including those with NBA experience, are increasingly attempting to join NCAA Division I men’s basketball programs, attracted by the lucrative opportunities offered through Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals. This emerging trend is now spreading beyond basketball, with ex-professionals from leagues such as the NFL also considering a return to college athletics.
The legal framework that limits college sports participation to non-professionals is eroding, as exceptions continue to proliferate. This weakening of eligibility rules suggests a growing challenge for the NCAA in enforcing the traditional boundary between professional and amateur athletes.
Legal Exceptions Challenge NCAA’s Eligibility Rules
Historical NCAA regulations barred former professionals from competing in college sports, but notable exceptions have been made for athletes from European hockey and basketball leagues, as well as for former G League players affiliated with the NBA. Each new exemption chips away at the enforceability of the eligibility restrictions, making the original rule less relevant and increasingly difficult to justify.
In the wake of these changes, high-profile cases such as Charles Bediako’s attempt to play for the University of Alabama’s basketball team illustrate the tension between NCAA policy and athlete aspirations. Bediako, who played two seasons at Alabama before turning professional, encountered resistance after signing two-way contracts that link NBA and G League play, contracts recognized legally as NBA agreements.
Judicial Decisions Impacting Player Eligibility
Last month, Circuit Court Judge James H. Roberts temporarily blocked the NCAA from enforcing rules that prevent former professionals from returning to college play, allowing Bediako to participate in five games during the 2025-26 season. However, after Roberts recused himself, Judge Daniel F. Pruet denied Bediako’s request to continue playing. Appeals may follow, but for now, Bediako’s collegiate career remains on hold.
NCAA President Charlie Baker stressed the organization’s stance in response to the controversy, stating,
“College sports are for students, not for people who already walked away to go pro and now want to hit the ‘undo’ button at the expense of a teenager’s dream.”
—Charlie Baker, NCAA President
Despite Baker’s comments, Bediako’s situation exemplifies a growing wave of legal challenges against NCAA eligibility rules and signals the potential for increased litigation in this space.
Other Former Pros Explore College Eligibility Claims
Amari Bailey, a former NBA player who appeared in ten games for the Charlotte Hornets during the 2023-24 season after spending one year at USC, is currently visiting college programs and has indicated willingness to pursue legal action if denied eligibility. The NCAA’s selective approval of former G League players to return to Division I basketball adds further complexity, highlighting inconsistencies in how the organization distinguishes between types of professional experience.
For example, Baylor center James Nnaji, the 31st pick in the 2023 NBA Draft, was allowed to join college basketball despite his NBA draft status and G League tenure. The NCAA perceives players who have signed NBA contracts differently than those who have only played in professional leagues, raising questions about fairness and uniformity in the enforcement of rules.
Unpredictable Court Outcomes Create Uneven Playing Field
As cases similar to those of Bediako and Bailey emerge in various jurisdictions, courts may issue conflicting decisions on athlete eligibility. This inconsistency mirrors earlier litigation involving Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia and several other experienced collegiate athletes, who challenged NCAA rules limiting participation to four seasons within five years in one sport.
Some judges have ruled in favor of student-athletes extending their college careers, allowing them to benefit from NIL deals and revenue sharing. Others have upheld strict NCAA eligibility standards, denying such opportunities. This patchwork legal environment could enable athletes to prolong their college sports careers indefinitely in some cases, undermining the NCAA’s goal of maintaining a level competitive field.
Arguments For and Against Former Pros Returning to College Sports
Court opinions diverge partly because the NCAA has no constitutional obligation to permit participation in college athletics. Many judges support the view that eligibility rules serve a valid purpose by preserving college sports as an amateur domain, where students typically pursue degrees within a limited timeframe before advancing to other life stages, such as professional careers or graduate education.
Opponents of former professionals’ participation warn that their presence could reduce opportunities for freshmen and traditional college players, potentially harming the spirit and commercial appeal of college athletics. This concern includes the fear that college sports may begin to resemble minor leagues, altering fan interest and related revenue streams.
Conversely, some judges question the NCAA’s selective acceptance of former professionals from specific leagues but not from others, arguing this approach borders on arbitrary and unfair treatment. Legal recognition of college athletes as participants in a distinct labor market, selling their services to schools, strengthens the case against blanket exclusions for former pros.
Groundbreaking Cases in Other Sports Highlight NCAA Inconsistencies
The movement of former professional athletes back into college sports gained attention in 2024 when Rylan Masterson, a 19-year-old Ontario hockey player, successfully challenged the NCAA’s ban on players from the Canadian Hockey League. The NCAA relented in late 2024, allowing CHL players to become eligible despite previously classifying them as professionals and thus ineligible for NCAA competition.
Masterson’s lawsuit underscored the NCAA’s inconsistent policies by pointing out that former European professional hockey players, such as Vancouver Canucks draft pick Tom Willander, were already participating in college hockey. Willander played professionally in Sweden before joining Boston University in 2023, illustrating the arbitrary enforcement of eligibility rules across leagues and continents.
Similar contradictions exist in tennis, where players can earn up to $10,000 per year in prize money without losing NCAA eligibility, adding to the ongoing debate about what defines amateur status.
NCAA’s Evolving Stance on Former NBA Players and Professional Experience
The NCAA’s allowance for former European professional basketball players to compete further complicates the exclusion of former NBA players. Egor Demin, a Brooklyn Nets rookie and the eighth pick in the 2025 NBA Draft, played for the BYU basketball team in 2024-25 despite holding a six-year contract with Real Madrid, a top professional team featuring NBA prospects and veterans. The NCAA categorized his compensation as covering actual and necessary expenses, demonstrating flexibility in its interpretation of professionalism.
This patchwork approach raises concerns for the NCAA as a national governing body. If courts rule differently across states and conferences, some schools could gain an unfair advantage by recruiting former NBA players, disrupting competitive balance and undermining the organization’s authority.
Parallels with NIL Rule Implementation and Legislative Challenges
The NCAA’s challenges with non-uniform enforcement echo previous issues experienced during the 2021 introduction of NIL rights. Though often mistakenly linked to the Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston decision, the NIL policy was driven by state legislation influenced by Ed O’Bannon’s landmark legal battles over player likeness rights. After numerous states enacted NIL laws, the NCAA faced legal pressure it could not overcome, choosing to adopt a new framework rather than engage in extensive lawsuits.
Similarly, combating former professional players’ return to college sports will prove difficult as courts weigh individual athlete rights against NCAA regulations.
The Growing Financial Appeal of College Sports Participation
The economic incentives attracting former pro athletes to college sports continue to expand. Beyond NIL contracts, a federal settlement permits participating schools to distribute up to 22% of average Power Five conference revenues from media, ticket sales, and sponsorships directly to athletes. Some college players now have the potential to earn millions, rivaling or exceeding salaries in minor professional leagues.
College competition also offers significant exposure on high-profile media platforms like ESPN, allowing athletes to develop personal brands and attract future professional opportunities. This exposure contrasts with limited visibility in minor leagues, where players earn comparatively modest incomes—approximately $45,000 for G League players during the 2025-26 season, for example.
Cross-Sport Implications: NFL and Beyond
The shift in eligibility dynamics extends beyond basketball. Former NFL players with stalled professional careers may seek to return to NCAA football, where the financial rewards through NIL and revenue sharing could surpass salaries earned in minor leagues such as the United Football League or the Canadian Football League. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has publicly supported existing NCAA eligibility rules but emphasized that the NFL does not control college regulations.
This principle applies across various sports—including women’s basketball, baseball, hockey, and soccer—where some student-athletes are already earning significant income. Even modest NIL and revenue-sharing arrangements make collegiate competition appealing for athletes pursuing athletic exposure, education, and life advancement.
Prospects for Future NCAA Policy and Judicial Responses
Though the NCAA has repeatedly sought congressional backing to protect its eligibility rules, efforts have largely failed. The prospect of former professionals occupying spots on college teams and diminishing opportunities for traditional students might motivate legislative or regulatory intervention, but the record offers little reassurance.
More plausibly, the NCAA will face a landscape shaped by increasing admissions of former pro athletes, accompanied by conflicting judicial rulings. Over time, court decisions may compel the NCAA to standardize policies that allow similarly situated former professionals to compete, fundamentally reshaping college athletics eligibility standards.
