news-engine

One of the main problems facing power-conference college sports is NCAA member schools—and particularly coaches—urging and incentivizing ineligible players to sue for court orders blocking the NCAA and conferences from enforcing eligibility rules. The SEC on Thursday took an aggressive step to combat that problem by suing LSU, LSU head football coach Lane Kiffin and others in an Alabama federal court. The SEC seeks an injunction to stop LSU from engaging in conduct contrary to the conference’s “purpose and mission.” This is particularly notable given the college football season starts in full this weekend; games are taking place on Thursday night, and LSU is playing a high-profile matchup against Clemson on Saturday night. This isn’t the first time in 2026 that a power conference has sued a member school over the school’s plan to play an ineligible player. In June, the Big 12 sued Texas Tech and others over the Red Raiders’ intention to play quarterback Brendan Sorsby in 2026. The NCAA had disqualified Sorsby for violating anti-gambling rules, and the Big 12 also regarded him as ineligible. But a Texas state judge granted Sorsby an injunction allowing him to play. The Big 12 argued, among other points, that Texas Tech’s threats to sue the conference if the conference punished the school for playing Sorsby violated the First Amendment and antitrust law. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Sorsby withdrew from Texas Tech. Filed by Robert W. Fuller, R. Thomas Warburton and other attorneys from Robinson Bradshaw and Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, Thursday’s SEC complaint argues that LSU and Kiffin have violated the SEC’s First Amendment right of expressive association. They have allegedly done so by recruiting NFL players who finished college earlier this year and want to return to school. Those athletes began college play in 2022–23 and completed four years of NCAA eligibility. They are former college players who argue that the NCAA should have included them in an eligibility-rule change in June, when the NCAA expanded eligibility to up to five years but didn’t extend that benefit to them. If they can play another college season, theses athletes could earn potentially millions of dollars in NIL and revenue-share money, as well as further develop their games in hopes of joining an NFL team in 2027. Obviously, players who are 22 or 23 years old, who played four seasons of Division I college football and who attracted the interest of NFL teams are players whom college coaches such as Kiffin would want to play. But one reason the NCAA didn’t include them is that there are 18-year-old freshmen who just started college. These players have a reliance interest in not losing a roster spot—or at least playing time—if a seasoned and older player returns to school. The NCAA also expects its member schools to follow membership rules and not undermine them by enticing and cheering on players to sue the NCAA. For all the talk about the chaos of college sports these days and the need for congressional intervention and antitrust exemptions, coaches’ attempts to circumvent the NCAA are arguably a more disruptive problem because they show that coaches don’t follow existing rules. The same is true for the SEC, which has its own set of eligibility restrictions. Those rules similarly block former NFL players from returning to college rosters. The SEC argues that LSU and Kiffin have made it a “deliberate and coordinated campaign” to recruit players who signed NFL contracts with the Cleveland Browns, New Orleans Saints and Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Some of these players, the SEC contends, have been practicing with the LSU football team. Those players are plaintiffs in separate litigation taking place in a Louisiana state court, with a key hearing occurring Thursday. More than 40 college athletes from the high school class of 2022 who graduated or otherwise completed their college careers now seek to play an additional NCAA season in 2026–27. They have sued the NCAA, SEC and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, who testified on Thursday. The case, Pyburn v. NCAA, is similar to others being litigated across the country. The players argue it is unfair that they can’t receive five seasons of eligibility, and that the NCAA and SEC, along with their member institutions, have agreed to prevent members from trying to “buy” the services of these players in violation of antitrust law. One counterargument is that these players are no longer college athletes: Some have turned pro, and the NCAA and SEC, as private member associations, have the legal right to set eligibility rules. Another counterargument is that college athletes, like their classmates, typically leave college for another pursuit after four years, rather than professional athletes making a career of college sports. One of the distinguishing and marketable characteristics of college sports is that it’s designed to be played by students who are athletes, not professional athletes. The SEC is also a beneficiary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston (2021). While the court found that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by agreeing to limit reimbursements for athletes’ education-related costs, the court also made clear that conferences are free to set their own rules. Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit cited that specific point in dismissing an antitrust lawsuit brought by athletes against the Ivy League over its policy of no athletic scholarships. The SEC claims a First Amendment violation based on LSU allegedly forcing the conference to “associate” its brand, media rights and games with conduct the SEC rejects: allowing former NFL players to play who are ineligible under NCAA and SEC rules. A member school playing former NFL players, the SEC insists, undermines its ability “to express the values it has publicly espoused.” Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the SEC points out that the First Amendment protects both the right to associate with others and the right not to associate. The SEC insists that if a court prevents it from enforcing eligibility rules, the group of SEC schools—though obviously not LSU—will be “forced to accept certain members whose conduct is antithetical to the group’s viewpoint.” Attorneys for LSU will have the opportunity to respond. Expect them to argue that while the SEC claims it has authority as a private conference to set and enforce rules, it is asking a court to intervene in what LSU could characterize as a dispute involving a school within that private conference. LSU could argue that the proper vehicle for the SEC is to use its bylaws, which detail procedures for fining, suspending or otherwise disciplining a member school or coach and for terminating a school’s membership. From that perspective, LSU could assert that this is a contract dispute, not a First Amendment one. SEC v. LSU has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Annemarie Carney Axon, who presided over the recent trial court victory for former Alabama basketball player Kai Spears against The New York Times. A jury found the Times defamed Spears by incorrectly claiming he was at a deadly shooting incident and awarded him approximately $9.25 million in damages. Molly Geary contributed to this story.