Should NBA Players Be Permitted to Return to College Basketball? The Legal Uncertainty of NCAA Eligibility

Written by Theo Kuo | March 26, 2026

College basketball has historically operated under strict eligibility rules designed to preserve amateurism, including limitations on player mobility and restrictions on athlete compensation. Athletes who transferred between Division I programs were typically required to sit out a full academic year before regaining eligibility, while NCAA rules prohibited athletes from receiving compensation beyond scholarships and cost-of-attendance stipends, preventing them from earning income tied to their athletic performance or personal brand.

However in recent years, both of these policies have been significantly revised with the NCAA adopting a one-time transfer rule allowing athletes to compete immediately at a new school, and simultaneously permitting college athletes to profit from NIL (name, image, and likeness) deals. 

One college basketball rule, however, has remained in place: once a player turns professional, their college eligibility is forfeited. But recent cases in the NCAA suggest that this policy may also be at risk of changing.

In December 2025, Baylor University added James Nnaji midseason, a recruit that raised eyebrows, as he was the 31st overall pick in the 2023 NBA Draft. The NCAA ruled Nnaji was eligible to compete because he had never signed an NBA contract or played in an official NBA game, despite having professional experience overseas (ESPN Staff, 2026).

At the same time, Charles Bediako, who signed a two-way contract with the San Antonio Spurs, attempted to return to Alabama. The NCAA initially denied his eligibility request before Bediako sued. Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court Judge James H. Roberts Jr. issued a temporary restraining order allowing Bediako to compete in a few games before a local judge later denied his request for a preliminary injunction (Medcalf, 2026). During his appeal, Tuscaloosa Circuit Court Judge Daniel Pruet and the Alabama Supreme Court both declined to grant interim relief, effectively ending his college basketball career (Kelly & Stahl, 2026).

Both of these cases highlight a central legal question emerging in college basketball: who ultimately determines player eligibility rules? The NCAA, or the courts?

How NCAA Eligibility Rules Work

The NCAA’s rules attempt to distinguish between professional and amateur athletes. In their system, players who have signed an NBA contract or appeared in an official NBA game are not eligible for college basketball. 

However notably, other forms of professional experience don’t automatically disqualify a player. The NCAA evaluates several factors, including the athlete’s age, the number of games played, and how long they have been removed from high school (Akere, 2025).

Professional Players Enter College Basketball 

One notable example is Wei Lin, who made history as the first Chinese men’s professional to play in the NCAA. Hailing from the Chinese Basketball Association, Lin is 22, played in 36 games, and would only be 4 years removed from high school, making his case eligible for NCAA competition (Cravalho, 2025).

Several other examples illustrate these rules in practice.

The NCAA cleared Thierry Darlan, London Johnson, and Abdullah Ahmed, three former G League Ignite players, to play college basketball because they were not under NBA contracts and did not play in official NBA games (ESPN, 2026).

Nnaji’s entrance into amateur basketball pushed the boundaries even further. Although he had been drafted into the NBA and played professionally overseas, he was deemed eligible for competition. Because Nnaji and Lin both never played college basketball prior to their professional career, they were both granted four years of eligibility. 

Bediako’s case illustrates where the NCAA draws the line. After signing a two-way NBA contract, he was made ineligible. While his lawsuit temporarily allowed him to return to the court, he is not currently suited up for Alabama. 

All of these cases demonstrate that eligibility is a case-by-case decision that hinges on specific legal distinctions between contracts, leagues, and official NBA participation.

Courts and the Erosion of NCAA Authority

Historically, the NCAA has exercised broad authority over eligibility decisions, but recently that has increasingly been challenged in court.

Many argue that NCAA rules restricting athlete participation may function as restraints on competition in the college sports world and courts have therefore begun to scrutinize those rules more closely. Although Bediako’s injunction was ultimately denied, it proved that courts are willing to intervene in disputes.

Antitrust Risks

More importantly, the NCAA could face future legal risks if eligibility rules are enforced as inconsistently as they are currently. Antitrust law generally prohibits organizations from imposing arbitrary restrictions that limit participation in a market. 

If players with professional experience are sometimes allowed to play, and sometimes denied eligibility, courts could view these decisions as an inconsistent infringement on athletes’ economic opportunities, especially now that NIL is legal and increasingly fast-growing. 

Past litigation with O’Bannon v. NCAA has already questioned the NCAA’s definition of amateurism. In 2015, the Ninth Circuit noted that the NCAA’s conception of amateurism has been “malleable,” changing over time in “significant and contradictory ways” (O’Bannon v. NCAA, 2015, p. 20).

Emerging professional pathways and recent eligibility disputes suggest the NCAA may face growing pressure to clarify its rules, as courts increasingly play a role in determining who can compete in college basketball.

References

Akere, P. (2025, November 24). From the Pros to college: The inversion causing ripples around the globe. From the Pros to College: The Inversion Causing Ripples Around the Globe | The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts. https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts/announcement/view/850#:~:text=Per%20the%20NCAA%20amateurism%20bylaws,since%20the%202008–2009%20season. 

Cravalho, A. (2025, October 2). Oregon basketball makes history with addition of exciting Chinese star. Oregon Ducks On SI. https://www.si.com/college/oregon/news/oregon-basketball-history-exciting-chinese-star-recruiting-rankings-dana-altman-wei-lin-ncaa-ducks 

​​ESPN Staff. (2026, February 24). What to know about Charles Bediako, more men’s college basketball eligibility cases. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/47685841/mens-college-basketball-ncaa-eligibility-faq-charles-bediako-james-nnaji 

Kelly, N., & Stahl, M. (2026, February 24). Tuscaloosa judge decides whether Charles Bediako can play for Alabama again. AL. https://www.al.com/alabamabasketball/2026/02/tuscaloosa-judge-decides-whether-charles-bediako-can-play-for-alabama-again.html 

Medcalf, M., & Authors, M. (2026, February 27). Alabama Supreme Court denies Charles Bediako’s request to play while case is appealed. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/48057768/alabama-supreme-court-denies-charles-bediako-request-play-case-appealed 

O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015).