The decision that granted an injunction to quarterback Brendan Sorsby continues to generate repercussions in college sports in the United States. The case was tried in Texas on June 8. Since then, leaders and representatives of the sector have expressed concern about the possible impacts of the measure.
It’s worth noting that Brendan Sorsby placed at least 40 bets on Indiana University football games during his two seasons on the show, ESPN reported, citing court documents filed by the quarterback’s legal team as part of his request for a preliminary injunction against the NCAA to maintain his college football eligibility.
The current policy prevents student-athletes from placing bets on any NCAA-organized sport or professional sports. Players can receive permanent suspensions for betting on their own teams. In a letter to the NCAA, Sorsby stated that he never bet on a game he played in, nor did he ever bet against his own team.
Among the reactions to the injunction in favor of the quarterback is that of the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Charlie Baker. In a post on social media, made on June 13, the director stated that the decision had “negative effects”. Additionally, he cited a a similar lawsuit involving Clemson University wide receiver Tristan Smith.
Baker links Sorsby case to new lawsuits
In the post, Baker shared a screenshot of a South Carolina court decision. The document granted a favorable injunction to Smith in his dispute against the NCAA.
The highlighted excerpt mentions the decision in favor of Sorsby, and according to the document, the athlete could suffer “irreparable damage” if he was unable to play for Texas Tech this season.
Among the losses cited are the loss of support from the technical committee. The text also mentions physical trainers and participation in a Division I university.
Furthermore, the decision points to another possible impact: Sorsby could lose a possible participation in the 2026 NFL Supplemental Draft.
Baker said: “Yet another example of why we need Congress to pass the College Sports Protection Act, authorizing the association to apply sensible eligibility rules consistently to all student-athletes and schools, regardless of the state or local court system.”
According to Baker, the decision related to Sorsby doesn’t just affect one athlete. For the director, the case also influences the uniform application of NCAA rules.
Tristan Smith questions criteria adopted by the NCAA
Tristan Smith sued the NCAA on January 21, the athlete made the decision after the entity denied his request for an exemption from eligibility in November last year.
Smith played for Hutchinson Community College in Kansas during the 2022 and 2023 seasons. The NCAA later granted a blanket exemption for the 2025-26 academic year.
The measure benefited athletes who began their careers at community colleges. She also considered those who would end their sporting careers without granting the benefit.
However, the exemption did not extend to the 2026-27 academic year. For that reason, Smith argued that the NCAA granted similar exemptions to other athletes under similar conditions.
Justice points to individual analysis of cases
South Carolina law establishes criteria for granting temporary restraining orders and injunctionss. These include the risk of irreparable harm, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the absence of another suitable solution.
Despite the criticisms presented by Baker, experts believe that the effects of the decision involving Sorsby may be limited.
In this sense, legal analyst Michael McCann noted that Judge Ken Curry‘s decision is not definitive. Furthermore, it does not create precedent outside of Lubbock County, Texas.
When analyzing Smith’s case, Judge Jessica Ann Salvini highlighted the need to evaluate each situation individually.
Ann Salvini wrote: “In these specific circumstances, granting a temporary restraining order and injunction ensures a fair outcome.”
