On November 21, 2025, College of Charleston Cougars guard Connor Hickman made his season debut against the U-Mass Minutemen. Hickman logged 34 minutes, and his case is one of the latest demonstrating the crucial role of courts in modern sports.
Indeed, on November 17—just a few days prior to the UMASS game, Hickman filed a lawsuit in South Carolina state court. The Complaint alleges that Hickman sustained a Zone 3 stress fracture in his foot, while competing in his fourth year of eligibility at the University of Cincinnati and that, while the athlete “did everything he was supposed to do,” he was given a “conservative treatment” plan which proved ineffective. According to the Complaint, Hickman should have been prescribed immediate surgery which would have allowed him to preserve his year of eligibility rather than participating in “several short, painful, medically compromised appearances” for Cincinnati during the 24-25 season.
Having competed in four years of NCAA competition, Hickman petitioned the NCAA for a hardship waiver to compete this season, which the NCAA denied. In the litigation, Hickman alleges he satisfied the NCAA’s requirements to obtain a medical hardship waiver, which arises under the NCAA Bylaws and allows a student-athlete to compete another year if they suffered from “incapacity . . . occurring before the first contest or date of competition of the second half of the play season . . . and occurring when the student-athlete has not participate in more than 30 percent of the maximum number of contests or dates of competition . . . for the applicable sport.”
And according to Hickman, his “case is simple”:
He would not have played basketball during the 2024-225 if he had been told the truth about his injury and the generally accepted course of surgical treatment. He trusted NCAA-mandated professionals at the University of Cincinnati, followed their instructions, and did not knowingly risk his season or his health. Defendant NCAA is punishing an athlete, Mr. Hickman, for the failings of a member institution and its medical staff.
Based on these allegations, Hickman’s lawsuit seeks injunctive relief allowing him to play basketball this season. He also sues the NCAA for allegedly violating South Carolina statutes, including the S.C. Unfair Trade Practices Act and the state’s NIL Law, as well as breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary to the relationship between the NCAA and the College of Charleston. Meanwhile, Hickman also sought a temporary injunction to prevent irreparable harm, which the Court granted on November 18—allowing Hickman to play until the case is formally resolved.
In its Order, the Court—like many across the country—sided with the athlete and found that he would be irreparably harmed if the NCAA’s decision remained in force. Specifically, the Court reasoned that Hickman would lose the chance to participate at the D-1 level and the attention and “renown” that comes with that opportunity, as well as losing his scholarship, the potential for revenue-sharing, and hindering his chances to play professionally after college. The Court further found that Hickman had already missed 4 games and that, if the Court did not intervene, he would miss even more chances to compete with his team. At bottom, the Court’s reasoning demonstrates its view that depriving athletes of the chance to compete cannot be remedied by legal damages. It will be interesting to see how these cases unfold with spring sports on the horizon beginning in January.