Tuscaloosa Circuit Court Judge Daniel Pruet has denied Charles Bediako’s motion for a preliminary injunction to continue playing for Alabama this season. After competing in five games over the past few weeks, Bediako is no longer eligible.
“(Bediako) failed to meet the first three elements required in order for the Court to issue the preliminary injunction,” Pruet wrote in his ruling.
In response to the decision, NCAA President Charlie Baker released the following statement: “Common sense won a round today. The court saw this for what it is: an attempt by professionals to pivot back to college and crowd out the next generation of students. 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. While we’re glad the court upheld the rules our members actually want, one win doesn’t fix the national mess of state laws. It’s time for Congress to stop watching from the sidelines and help us provide some actual stability.”
Bediako had been playing for Alabama under a temporary restraining order issued by Judge Jim Roberts, who recused himself from the case following reports that he was a donor to UA. Through five outings, Bediako averaged 10.0 points and 4.6 rebounds in 21.6 minutes. In the Tide’s 96-92 victory over Auburn on Saturday, he posted 12 points and 3 rebounds.
“We are disappointed in today’s court ruling, denying the injunction for Charles Bediako,” the University of Alabama said in a statement. “While we understand the concern around competitive and developmental implications of former professional athletes participating in college, it is important to acknowledge reality. The NCAA has granted eligibility to over 100 current men’s basketball players with prior professional experience in the G League or overseas. Granting eligibility to some former professionals, and not to others, is what creates the havoc we are currently in and why consistency from decision-makers is so desperately needed.”
Bediako filed the lawsuit in mid-January after the NCAA denied Alabama’s request to reinstate his eligibility. The 6-foot-11 center previously played for the Crimson Tide from 2021-23 before declaring for the 2023 NBA draft. He went undrafted but signed a two-way contract with the San Antonio Spurs and has suited up for three different G League teams over the past three seasons. As Hoops HQ legal expert Noah Henderson outlined here, the NCAA denied Alabama’s request because its bylaws treat completion of the NBA draft process and the signing of an NBA contract after full-time collegiate enrollment as grounds for permanent loss of eligibility.
A day after suing the NCAA, Bediako received the 10-day TRO from Roberts and began playing for the Tide. The TRO was extended an additional 10 days because the first preliminary injunction hearing was postponed due to weather issues. Alabama went 3-2 in games with Bediako, beating Missouri, Texas A&M and Auburn, and losing to Tennessee and Florida.
The rescheduled hearing took place last Friday. According to reporters present in the courtroom, Bediako’s team maintained that the NCAA has arbitrarily enforced its rules, as other former professionals (some with G League experience) have been allowed to compete in college basketball. On the other side, the NCAA contended that Bediako’s case is distinct because he was in college before, then left to turn pro. Baylor’s James Nnaji, a 6-foot-11 forward who was ruled eligible by the NCAA earlier this season despite being drafted by the Detroit Pistons in 2023, was a professional in Spain prior to declaring for the draft.
Bediako’s attorney David Holt told Pruet that Bediako has earned $530,000 since going pro. As 247Sports’ Mike Rodak reported, Holt also made the assertion that if Bediako loses the injunction he “may never have the opportunity to compete again” and would lose the chance to complete his degree. Holt said that Bediako could possibly return to the G League, but that it wasn’t a certainty. (Alabama coach Nate Oats said in a press conference that he would “100 percent” keep Bediako on scholarship regardless of the court’s ruling. “Charles is our guy,” Oats told reporters. “That’s been our point since the beginning.”)
NCAA attorney Taylor Askew argued in court that the case is “about money,” not academics, and that Bediako would have other opportunities to play not in college. Askew also said that granting the injunction would do harm to the NCAA as it would lead to “50 more lawsuits” and increased chaos.
In advance of the hearing, the NCAA filed an extensive motion opposing injunction, which in part read: “This Court should decline to forever change the landscape of high school, collegiate, and professional sports through grant of a preliminary injunction based upon a sparse record and upon causes of action that — at best — questionably apply to the facts of this case. Such a decision should be based on a well-developed record after the completion of discovery — not a self-serving, minimalist, verified complaint from one basketball player seeking substantial short-term financial gain through his participation in the remainder of the current basketball season.”
Shortly after, SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey penned an affidavit supporting the NCAA’s cause. “I respectfully ask the court to uphold the NCAA eligibility rules challenged in this case, which are essential to the integrity of college sports, to the educational mission they serve, and to the opportunities they provide for current and future student-athletes,” Sankey wrote.
Pruet’s decision is a major victory for the NCAA. Still, it is important to note that the case does not set a binding precedent. Other state courts across the country could rule differently, so players in similar positions can continue to fight for eligibility.
Meet your guide
