On July 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, overturned a preliminary injunction that would have granted University of Wisconsin cornerback Nyzier Fourqurean a fifth year of eligibility. The NCAA’s “Five-Year Rule” limits student-athletes to four seasons of competition within a five-year period. Fourqurean played four seasons: two at Grand Valley State University and two at the University of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin requested a waiver of the Five-Year Rule from the NCAA, citing circumstances that reduced Fourqurean’s playing time in his first season.
After the NCAA denied the request, Fourqurean sued, arguing that the Five-Year Rule unlawfully restrains trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. With the football season approaching, Fourqurean sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the NCAA from enforcing the rule. The district court granted the injunction, allowing Fourqurean to compete in the upcoming season.
However, the Seventh Circuit reversed this decision, identifying two main issues with the district court’s analysis. First, the court noted that the district court improperly relied on NCAA v. Alston to define the “relevant market.” The Seventh Circuit noted that Alston did not address market definition, and the college sports market has evolved since that decision, highlighting that Fourqurean’s claim was based on the availability of revenue sharing and NIL opportunities. Without a viable market definition, the Seventh Circuit concluded that Fourqurean did not qualify for a preliminary injunction.
Second, the court found that Fourqurean failed to demonstrate that the Five-Year Rule “creates, protects, or enhances the NCAA’s dominant position in the market … by making it more difficult for the NCAA’s existing or potential rivals to compete against the NCAA.” Instead, Fourqurean focused on his own exclusion from participation in college football as evidence of the Five Year Rule’s anticompetitive effects. However, since he is not a “rival” of the NCAA, the majority reasoned that his exclusion alone did not prove anticompetitive effects. Consequently, the majority reversed the preliminary injunction. The court noted that the NCAA’s bylaws allow for flexibility in addressing hardships like Fourqurean’s through the Committee for Legislative Relief.
In dissent, Circuit Judge Ripple disagreed with the majority’s focus on the NCAA’s business impact, arguing that the relevant issue is whether the rule excludes athletes like Fourqurean from the NCAA Division I football labor market, thus reducing competition. The dissent contended that the Five-Year Rule decreases market competition by excluding experienced players who could earn significant NIL compensation. Judge Ripple would have upheld the preliminary injunction.
