NCAA Gambling Rule Stands, but a Judge Highlights Fairness Issues

A Texas judge recently allowed former Cincinnati quarterback Brendan Sorsby to play for Texas Tech, even though he admitted betting about $90, 000 on college games over four years. The decision sparked anger online, but it was not a sweeping change to NCAA rules. Instead, the judge issued a temporary injunction that kept Sorsby eligible while his contract case moves forward. The NCAA’s gambling policy remains in force. The judge’s ruling was narrow and fact‑specific. He looked at three things: whether Sorsby would suffer irreparable harm if barred, whether he had a strong chance of winning on the merits, and which side would suffer more hardship. All three were satisfied, so the injunction was granted for now. No antitrust or constitutional questions were addressed. Sorsby’s lawyers did not argue that the rule is too broad. They claimed the NCAA used his gambling problem to protect its image while also profiting from betting companies that sponsor college sports. The judge found this argument had a realistic chance of success because the NCAA’s own commercial ties may have influenced how it applied its rules. This is a tougher claim to dismiss than simply saying the rule was struck down.The NCAA has faced similar challenges before, such as in O’Bannon and Alston, where courts said it can’t impose blanket limits on athletes that don’t apply to coaches or staff. Those cases have not yet decided the gambling rule, but they show a potential path for future challenges. What matters is that the judge’s decision does not mean the NCAA can no longer enforce its gambling policy. Other players caught betting on their own games will still face penalties unless they can make the same legal points that Sorsby’s team did. The ruling simply reminds everyone that the NCAA’s relationship with gambling is complex: it earns money from betting while also punishing athletes for participating. In short, the rule is still alive. The court’s order highlights fairness concerns and may lead to more detailed scrutiny in the future, but it does not end the NCAA’s ability to enforce its gambling restrictions.