Tortious Interference with Contract: Players who signed valid financial aid agreements, National Letters of Intent, or Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals prior to August 25th can argue the SEC is unlawfully interfering with existing, binding contracts.Promissory Estoppel: Athletes can argue they reasonably relied on the rules in place when they transferred and signed their agreements, and that changing the rules retroactively causes them unconscionable financial and professional harm.Summary of Judicial PrecedentIn the current legal landscape, federal judges have shown a strong willingness to issue temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions against college sports governing bodies when retroactive or restrictive rules harm players. Therefore, while the SEC has the administrative authority to pass the rule, federal courts hold the ultimate authority to decide if implementing it retroactively is legally enforceable.If you want, I can look into:Any specific lawsuits or injunctions filed by players since the August 25th rulingHow previous antitrust rulings like Alston impact conference-level rules. NUFF SAID!!!