USC & UCLA Dreams Dashed! Judge Blocks Key Players This Season!
In a stunning turn of events, a U.S. District Court judge has effectively blocked former Appalachian State wide receiver Kaedin Robinson and USC offensive lineman DJ Wingfield from competing for UCLA and USC, respectively, this season. Both players had hoped to secure a fifth year of eligibility, believing the courts and NCAA had paved the way for them to play.
Wingfield was offered a lucrative $210,000 NIL deal to bolster USC's offensive line, while UCLA enticed Robinson with a $450,000 contract to become a top receiver. However, after their waivers were initially rejected, they sued the NCAA, leading to the recent court decision.
The players' attorneys argued that the NCAA's Five-Year Rule, which limits athletes to four seasons in five years, violated antitrust laws by restricting athletes' eligibility and, consequently, their NIL earning potential. They contended that preventing Wingfield and Robinson from playing would cause “irreparable harm.”
Unfortunately for the players, the judge swiftly dismissed these claims after a hearing, denying the request for injunctive relief for both players, as well as San Diego linebacker Jagger Giles.
UCLA's Optimism Dashed
UCLA coach DeShaun Foster had previously expressed optimism about Robinson joining the team, even stating in July that he was still positive about the receiver's eligibility. This ruling comes as a significant blow to the Bruins, as Robinson was anticipated to be a key target for quarterback Nico Iamaleava.
The Lawsuit Against the NCAA
Robinson's lawsuit against the NCAA argued that the eligibility rule had “substantial anticompetitive effects on two-year or junior colleges and universities that are excluded from NCAA membership.” The lawsuit sought injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
What's Next?
The future remains uncertain for both Wingfield and Robinson. This legal battle highlights the ongoing tension between the NCAA's eligibility rules and athletes' rights in the era of NIL deals. It also raises questions about the fairness and consistency of the NCAA's waiver process.