Alabama men’s basketball player Charles Bediako can no longer play college basketball, an Alabama judge ruled Monday, marking a significant victory for the NCAA and its existing eligibility rules.
Judge Daniel Pruet of the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court denied a preliminary injunction in Bediako’s lawsuit against the NCAA that prevents him from continuing to play for the Crimson Tide, overruling a temporary restraining order for immediate eligibility that was granted to Bediako last month.
Bediako, 23, previously played for Alabama from 2021 to 2023. The 7-footer from Brampton, Ontario, declared for the 2023 NBA Draft after two seasons in college, at the time forgoing his remaining eligibility. He went undrafted but signed a two-way contract with an NBA team and spent most of the past three seasons competing in the G League, including as recently as a game on Jan. 17. He never appeared in an NBA game.
He rejoined Alabama last month and took his case to court after the NCAA denied Alabama’s request to reinstate his eligibility.
Bediako played in five games for the Crimson Tide (16-7) after the temporary restraining order was granted on Jan. 21, averaging 10 points and 4.6 rebounds in 21.6 minutes per game. He scored 12 points off the bench in Alabama’s 96-92 rivalry win at Auburn on Saturday. The team was 3-2 when Bediako played. It is not expected that Alabama will have to vacate any wins in which Bediako participated.
Monday’s ruling, which came after a hearing Friday, represents a considerable triumph for the NCAA, which is facing numerous challenges to its eligibility rules. A number of former G League and international players were granted eligibility by the NCAA this season — including Baylor’s James Nnaji, a former NBA Draft pick — but unlike Bediako, none had previously played in college or signed an NBA contract, the latter of which was established as a red-line distinction by NCAA president Charlie Baker.
“Common sense won a round today,” Baker said in a statement Monday. “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.”
This passage of the judge’s order denying Bediako’s injunction request is particularly important.
He rejects the argument that a pro player will suffer harm if he can’t come back and make college NIL money. pic.twitter.com/XLdvINQmMY
— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) February 9, 2026
Alabama coach Nate Oats said last week that Bediako would remain on scholarship even if he’s unable to keep playing.
“Charles has done nothing wrong,” Oats said last month about his decision to play Bediako. “I will stand by our guys every single time, no matter what the outside says when they’ve done nothing wrong, and Charles has done everything right.”
Last Thursday, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey filed an affidavit in favor of upholding the NCAA’s eligibility rules and denying Bediako’s request to continue playing college basketball. It was a notable example of the commissioner — one of the most prominent and powerful leaders in college sports — advocating against a member of his own conference.
“Inconsistent application of the NCAA eligibility rules challenged in this case — through court rulings or otherwise — fuels disruption in college sports,” Sankey wrote in the affidavit.
In a separate opposition response last week, the NCAA described Bediako’s claim as “weak” and described it as a “self-serving, minimalist, verified complaint from one basketball player seeking substantial short-term financial gain.”
Despite waiting through the weekend before delivering a decision, the judge found those collective arguments convincing enough to deny the injunction.
In a five-page order denying the motion, Pruet laid out multiple reasons why Bediako’s request did not meet the standards for injunction relief, such as irreparable harm or a lack of adequate legal remedies. The judge wrote that Bediako “failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to the injunctive relief that he seeks.”
Bediako’s original complaint argued that he “never would have left school to pursue financial gain elsewhere” had he known the amount of money he could have soon earned at the college level via name, image, and likeness (NIL) and direct revenue sharing from the university under the terms of the House settlement.
The motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction stated Bediako would “suffer irreparable harm” if he was not granted immediate eligibility because of the competitive, financial and educational opportunities he would miss out on, and the complaint argued that Bediako’s case falls under the same category as other G League and international players who were granted eligibility.
The University of Alabama released a statement last month in support of Bediako and “his ongoing efforts to be reinstated for competition while he works to complete his degree.”
The school said Monday it was disappointed in the ruling.
“While we understand the concern around competitive and developmental implications of former professional athletes participating in college, it is important to acknowledge reality,” it said. “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.”
Alabama and Oats have drawn criticism from other coaches, administrators and college basketball personalities for recruiting and playing Bediako, and his return to college basketball seemed to spark continued eligibility efforts by other athletes who had left college and played in the NBA. Amari Bailey, a former UCLA guard, was selected in the second round of the 2023 NBA Draft after one season with the Bruins and played in 10 games for the Charlotte Hornets. His lawyer recently confirmed to The Athletic that Bailey is pursuing a return to college basketball.
Friday’s hearing in the Bediako case was heard before Judge Pruet because the initial judge — James H. Roberts Jr., who granted Bediako the temporary restraining order — later recused himself after the NCAA argued Roberts’ relationship with the university suggested an “impermissible appearance of impropriety.” Roberts is listed as a University of Alabama athletics donor on The Crimson Tide Foundation’s website, and his wife, Mary Turner Roberts, is reportedly on the legal team representing former Alabama player Darius Miles, who is set to stand trial for capital murder stemming from a 2023 shooting.
There are multiple ongoing eligibility lawsuits against the NCAA by college football players as well, including Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss and Tennessee quarterback Joey Aguilar. Both of those cases were filed in state court, like Bediako, as opposed to federal court, possibly due to a belief that a state court could offer a more favorable ruling to a high-profile athlete looking to play for an in-state university.
Many of the eligibility lawsuits stemmed from a federal court challenge in 2024 by former Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia that led to the NCAA issuing an eligibility waiver for the 2025-26 season to any athletes who attended junior colleges or other non-NCAA schools. The NCAA has faced a total of 55 eligibility lawsuits, resulting in both wins and losses for the organization, and others that are still ongoing.
“The biggest problem for me, when I talk to coaches and athletic directors and others is they say, rightly to me, that it seems to be where you live, what state you’re in, and what court you end up in and what judge you end up in front of, is the determining factor with respect to whether or not your (challenge) gets approved when you go outside the bounds of the NCAA rule-making process, and that is both confusing and not fair,” Baker told The Athletic this week. “And I don’t have a good answer for that, because they’re right.”
