The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled in favor of the NCAA in Nyzier Fourqurean’s eligibility lawsuit. The NCAA’s appeal came after a preliminary injunction was granted to Fourqurean by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Fourqurean, a member of the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s football team, brought antitrust claims in challenge of the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule, which limits college athletes to four seasons of eligibility in five years. Fourqurean has competed for two seasons at UW–Madison, after competing for two seasons at the Division II level.
The Seventh Circuit’s Decision
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s grant of the preliminary injunction, holding that Fourqurean failed to define a relevant antitrust market which was harmed by the Five-Year Rule. While the court recognized how the rule excludes Fourqurean himself from competing in the marketplace, he failed to show how the rule diminishes compensation in the marketplace overall, holding that “[u]nder ordinary principles of supply and demand, a restraint that limits the supply of workers in a labor market would increase, not decrease, worker compensation.”
Anticompetitive Effects
In analyzing the anticompetitive effects of the Five-Year Rule, the Court of Appeals reasoned that even if Division I FBS football was the relevant market (as Fourqurean alleged), the NCAA’s market dominance does not inherently diminish competition for the services of college football players. As Fourqurean—and the other college football players who are likewise limited to four years of eligibility—is not a competitor of the NCAA or its member institutions, he must prove an antitrust injury to the marketplace, not just to himself.
Otherwise, the appellate court held that the Five-Year Rule does not reduce competition between NCAA institutions for football players. Instead, the rule requires schools to compete over a smaller pool of eligible players. Although this harms Fourqurean, his pleadings do not show that this harms the whole market—an essential element of any antitrust claim.
Next Steps in this Case
The case will proceed in district court, without the preliminary injunction in place. The Court of Appeals noted that Fourqurean’s claims could be successful upon establishing a more complete record. Likewise, the appellate court recognized the challenges related to the calendar; the college football season begins next month. It encouraged the district court and the parties to expedite the litigation, although that may be difficult given the nature of the antitrust claims.
The Current Landscape of Five-Year Rule Challenges
To date, federal district courts have come to differing conclusions regarding the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule. Among similar cases, a handful of preliminary injunctions have been granted, while others have been denied. Notably, the Fourqurean case marks the first federal appellate court decision in the line of cases. Diego Pavia’s suit (which is notable as it was the first preliminary injunction granted) is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It is possible that if other federal appellate courts come to different conclusions on the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule, the U.S. Supreme Court could look to resolve the split between the circuits.
The post 7th Circuit Reverses District Court Injunction in Fourqurean NCAA Eligibility Case appeared first on Frieser Legal.