Charles Bediako’s NCAA lawsuit was a two-month legal fight in early 2026 over whether the former Alabama center could return to college basketball after signing an NBA two-way contract. Bediako sued the NCAA in Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court on January 20, 2026, won a temporary restraining order that let him play five games for Alabama, then lost his bid for a preliminary injunction, was turned away by the Alabama Supreme Court, and voluntarily dismissed the case on March 16, 2026.1ABC 33/40. Charles Bediako Voluntarily Dismisses Lawsuit Against NCAA
Why the NCAA Denied His Eligibility
Bediako played two seasons at Alabama from 2021 to 2023, then declared for the 2023 NBA Draft. He went undrafted but signed a two-way contract with the San Antonio Spurs in October 2023, was waived two months later, and cycled through Exhibit 10 deals with the Denver Nuggets and Detroit Pistons plus time in the G League. He never appeared in an NBA regular-season game.2The Athletic. Charles Bediako Alabama NCAA Lawsuit Basketball Eligibility
When Bediako re-enrolled at Alabama and asked to use his remaining eligibility for the 2025–26 season, the NCAA said no. The organization’s line was specific: because Bediako had already played college basketball and then signed an NBA contract, including a two-way deal, he could not come back, regardless of whether he ever logged an actual NBA minute.3AL.com. Judge Decides on Ex-Pro Charles Bediako’s Eligibility to Play for Alabama Basketball
NCAA President Charlie Baker defended the denial by saying “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.”4WBRC. Court Rules Against Alabama Player’s Attempt to Regain College Eligibility
What the Lawsuit Claimed
Bediako filed suit on January 20, 2026, in the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County (Case No. 63-CV-2026-900089.00), represented by Darren Heitner of Heitner Legal and David W. Holt of Loftin Holt.5Courthouse News Service. Bediako v. NCAA Complaint The complaint raised three claims:
- A violation of Alabama antitrust law under Alabama Code §§ 6-5-60 and 8-10-3, alleging the NCAA arbitrarily applied its eligibility rules to restrain trade.
- Intentional interference with Bediako’s business relationship with the Alabama basketball program.
- A request for declaratory judgment finding the NCAA’s denial unlawful and making Bediako immediately eligible.
The heart of the argument was inconsistency. Alabama told the court the NCAA had granted eligibility to more than 100 men’s basketball players with prior professional experience in the G League or overseas, and Holt argued in court that “dozens of former professional players are currently on Division I rosters,” including some in the SEC with more professional experience and higher pay than Bediako. The only real difference, Holt said, was that Bediako “spent two years in college before he tested the pro waters.”6Courthouse News Service. Attorney Accuses NCAA of Arbitrary Enforcement of Eligibility Rules4WBRC. Court Rules Against Alabama Player’s Attempt to Regain College Eligibility
The Five Games He Played Under the TRO
The day after Bediako filed suit, Tuscaloosa County Circuit Judge James H. Roberts Jr. granted a temporary restraining order making Bediako immediately eligible. The TRO took effect before Alabama’s January 24 game against Tennessee, and Roberts extended it for another 10 days on January 26 after a scheduled hearing was postponed due to winter weather.7CBS Sports. Charles Bediako Alabama Eligibility Judge Recused8The Athletic. Charles Bediako Alabama NCAA Judge Lawsuit
Bediako played in five games under the order, averaging 10 points and shooting 77.3% from the field.9Basketball Reference. Charles Bediako Stats
Why the Case Was Reassigned
On January 26, 2026, the NCAA moved to remove Judge Roberts, citing his and his wife’s donations to Alabama athletics through the Crimson Tide Foundation in the $100,000 to $249,999 range, along with his wife’s prior legal representation of a former Alabama basketball player. Bediako’s team did not oppose reassignment, and Roberts recused himself on January 28, 2026. The case went to Judge Daniel F. Pruet.10Courthouse News Service. NCAA Seeks Judge’s Recusal in Alabama Basketball Case11AL.com. Alabama Donor Judge in Charles Bediako’s NCAA Eligibility Lawsuit Recuses
Why the Preliminary Injunction Was Denied
The hearing before Judge Pruet took place on February 6, 2026. NCAA attorney Taylor Askew told the court its job was to apply existing bylaws, not “rewrite them on behalf of one player,” and warned that a ruling for Bediako could produce “50 more lawsuits” and “chaos.” Before the hearing, SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey filed an affidavit urging the court to rule against Bediako, arguing that letting former professionals back onto college rosters would create “competitive disadvantage and fundamental unfairness” for players who stayed in the college system.12On3. Charles Bediako Attorney Releases Statement After Court Hearing on Eligibility Case13WBRC. SEC Commissioner Files Affidavit Opposing Alabama Player’s Return From Pro Basketball
On February 9, 2026, Pruet denied the preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO. His ruling worked through each element:
- No irreparable harm. Bediako’s alleged losses, including revenue-sharing opportunities and the “college experience,” were measurable and compensable through money damages.
- No reasonable chance of success on the merits. Pruet questioned whether Alabama’s antitrust law reached conduct occurring outside the state, and he concluded the NCAA was not a “legal stranger” to its own eligibility-related contracts, so it could not have tortiously interfered with them.
- No reasonable expectation of eligibility. No other player in Bediako’s exact circumstances, having left college for the NBA draft, signed a two-way contract, and played in the G League, had ever been granted eligibility.
- Hardship to the NCAA. Granting the injunction would undermine longstanding eligibility rules and invite a wave of similar litigation.14ESPN. Judge Denies Charles Bediako Motion for Injunction to Play for Alabama15ABC 33/40. Judge Denies Alabama Player Charles Bediako’s Bid to Keep Playing During NCAA Suit
Pruet wrote that the case was “not about whether the Plaintiff can be paid to play basketball, but for whom.”14ESPN. Judge Denies Charles Bediako Motion for Injunction to Play for Alabama
How the Case Ended
Bediako’s attorneys asked the Alabama Supreme Court for emergency interim injunctive relief, arguing that the ordinary appeal process would not finish before the NCAA tournament and would functionally end his season. On February 27, 2026, the Alabama Supreme Court denied the request without a written opinion.16Yahoo Sports. Alabama Supreme Court Refuses to Grant Charles Bediako Emergency Injunction
With no path back on the court that season, Bediako voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit on March 16, 2026. The dismissal was without prejudice, leaving the claims theoretically available to refile later, and court records reflected that each side would bear its own legal costs.17247Sports. Charles Bediako Drops Lawsuit Against NCAA After Failed Bid to Remain Eligible
The James Nnaji Comparison
The comparison that ran through Bediako’s arguments was James Nnaji, a Nigerian forward and the 31st pick in the 2023 NBA Draft. In late December 2025, Baylor signed Nnaji after the NCAA granted him immediate eligibility with a full four years remaining. Nnaji had played five years for FC Barcelona and appeared in NBA Summer League games, but he had never enrolled in a U.S. college and had never signed an NBA contract.18ESPN. NCAA Charlie Baker Says Players With NBA Contracts Not Eligible
Bediako’s complaint held Nnaji up as proof of inconsistency. The NCAA answered that two lines separated the cases: Nnaji had never previously enrolled in college, and he had never signed an NBA contract. Under NCAA Bylaw 12.2.2.2.1, pre-enrollment professional competition is permitted under certain conditions, which is the door Nnaji walked through and Bediako could not.19University of Miami Law Review. Eligibility on Trial: The Bediako Case and the Role of Courts in College Sports
What the Ruling Means for Other Players
Bediako’s loss followed a similar outcome for Tennessee guard Zakai Zeigler in June 2025, when a federal judge in Tennessee denied his preliminary injunction for a fifth season. In that case, Judge Katherine Crytzer ruled that lost NIL opportunities were monetary rather than irreparable injuries, and wrote that the court was “a court of law, not policy.”20ESPN. Judge Denies Zakai Zeigler Request to Play Fifth Season
Together, Zeigler and Bediako point in the same direction: courts have been unwilling to override NCAA eligibility rules through emergency injunctions when the athlete’s claimed injuries reduce to compensable financial losses, and judges have flagged the risk of setting off similar litigation across the sport.
The pressure on that framework has not stopped. Trentyn Flowers, a two-way player with the Chicago Bulls who has appeared in NBA games, was drawing recruiting interest from power conference programs in late 2025. Former UCLA guard Amari Bailey, who played 10 NBA games for the Charlotte Hornets, was preparing to petition for eligibility reinstatement with attorney Elliot Abrams. Bailey’s case would push the same question one step further than Bediako’s: whether a player who actually logged NBA minutes can return at all.21The Athletic. Amari Bailey College Basketball Return Eligibility
Baker called the Bediako ruling a win for “common sense” but said a single decision would not settle the issue, urging Congress to “stop watching from the sidelines and help us provide some actual stability.”22ESPN. Men’s College Basketball NCAA Eligibility FAQ Charles Bediako James Nnaji