Friday is a big day for college athletics. Charles Bediako, the former and now current Alabama center, is scheduled for a hearing to challenge the NCAA’s eligibility ruling that bars him from playing in college after signing an NBA contract. A decision on a preliminary injunction is expected relatively quickly, likely early next week, given the time-sensitive nature of Bediako and Alabama’s situation. If the judge rules in his favor, Bediako will be permitted to compete for the Crimson Tide for the rest of the season.
But the ramifications will be felt well beyond Tuscaloosa.
For the NCAA, the best outcome would be for the court to rule in its favor. That would be a high-profile affirmation of the NCAA’s authority to apply its bylaws as written. Such a ruling would arrive as former UCLA guard Amari Bailey (who has appeared in NBA games) is suing for a similar path back to college competition.
If the court allows Bediako to compete, however, it might not be the huge loss for the NCAA that many will interpret it to be. That’s because another highly publicized setback to NCAA enforcement authority would likely heighten the urgency around the NCAA’s ongoing efforts on Capitol Hill and potentially strengthen its push for an antitrust exemption.
By NCAA rules, Bediako should be ineligible. He played for the Crimson Tide during the 2021–22 and 2022–23 seasons before entering the 2023 NBA Draft following his sophomore year. He remained in the draft process past the NCAA’s deadline to withdraw but went undrafted. He ultimately signed multiple NBA contracts, including a two-way deal with the San Antonio Spurs, and spent parts of three seasons in the NBA G League. He appeared in 46 NBA G League games, most recently within the Detroit Pistons organization. This spring semester, Bediako re-enrolled at Alabama and, thanks to the temporary restraining order issued by an Alabama state court, has appeared in three SEC conference games.
Bediako never appeared in an official NBA game. Nonetheless, NCAA bylaws treat completion of the NBA draft process after full-time collegiate enrollment, and the signing of an NBA contract, as separate and independent grounds for the permanent loss of collegiate eligibility.
At the heart of Bediako’s lawsuit is a claim under state antitrust laws, which prohibit unlawful restraints of trade. His counsel concedes that Bediako’s situation is different from athletes like Baylor’s James Nnaji, who entered the NBA draft without ever enrolling in college.
Bediako’s lawsuit challenges the fairness and consistency with which the NCAA applies its eligibility rules. He argues that the rule barring eligibility after signing NBA contracts, while clear on its face, is applied unevenly in practice. Domestic athletes who enroll in college, explore professional opportunities, and later seek to return are treated more harshly than international players or G League professionals who never enrolled, even when those athletes have comparable or greater professional experience.
According to the complaint, this uneven application functions as an unlawful restraint not only on Bediako’s ability to compete and earn, but also on the University of Alabama’s ability to contract freely with a willing and eligible athlete.
It’s important to note that Bediako’s claim does not ask the court to rewrite NCAA bylaws. It only asks whether the NCAA may enforce those bylaws in a way that restrains both an athlete’s right to pursue his profession and a university’s right to contract, particularly when similarly situated athletes are treated differently based on the pathway they took into college basketball.
Other athletes with G League experience, such as Thierry Darlan (Santa Clara), London Johnson (Louisville), and Abdullah Ahmed (BYU), have successfully entered or returned to college basketball. However, those cases are materially different. Each player competed exclusively under standard G League contracts, which do not constitute NBA contracts under NCAA bylaws. As compensation structures in college sports have shifted, the traditional G League salary (approximately $40,000 annually) has become significantly less lucrative than the earning potential available to comparable players in college basketball. The NCAA has historically treated such situations similarly to eligibility determinations involving European professionals who competed for pay prior to enrolling in college.
Whatever the outcome of Friday’s hearing, Bediako’s case reflects the growing uncertainty around how NCAA eligibility rules are enforced. While the ruling itself is unlikely to settle broader legal questions, it serves as a signal for additional eligibility challenges and increased pressure for federal regulation.
🏀 SUBSCRIBE TO THE HOOPS HQ SHOW ON YOUTUBE.
Meet your guide
