ELAD v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
3:25-cv-01981
| D.N.J. | Apr 25, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jett Elad, a college football player, sought a preliminary injunction against the NCAA to prevent enforcement of its "Five-Year Rule" as applied to time he spent playing at a junior college (JUCO), which would otherwise limit his eligibility to play at Rutgers University for the 2025–26 season.
- The NCAA counts years spent in junior college against the five-year eligibility clock for participating in NCAA sports, pursuant to its bylaws.
- Elad argued this rule violated the Sherman Act by unfairly restraining trade and harming the labor market for college football athletes, especially in light of commercial realities brought by NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) compensation.
- After being denied a waiver by the NCAA, Elad filed suit and obtained a temporary restraining order, with the case proceeding to a preliminary injunction hearing where expert testimony was presented on both sides.
- The court found Elad was credible, the NCAA’s justification unconvincing, and that Elad would suffer irreparable harm if enjoined from playing, while public interest and balance of hardships favored him.
- The court granted Elad’s motion, enjoining the NCAA from enforcing both the Five-Year Rule (as to JUCO time) and the Rule of Restitution against Elad or Rutgers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Elad) | Defendant's Argument (NCAA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NCAA’s JUCO Rule is subject to the Sherman Act | Rule is commercial post-NIL, as it limits economic activity | Rule is not commercial, per historical precedent | Subject to Sherman Act scrutiny |
| Anticompetitive effects of JUCO Rule | Rule unfairly restrains labor market, limits competition | Rule is neutral; effects are redistributed, not unfair | Substantial likelihood of anticompetitive harm |
| Procompetitive justifications by NCAA | No real competitive justification; analogies inconsistent | Differentiates NCAA from pro sports, preserves freshman experience | Justifications not compelling |
| Irreparable harm | Loss of opportunity is irreplaceable, not just monetary | Delay in seeking relief undermines harm | Irreparable harm shown |
Key Cases Cited
- National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021) (Supreme Court clarified that NCAA restrictions with commercial effects could fall under antitrust scrutiny)
- Ohio v. Am. Express Co., 585 U.S. 529 (2018) (Discusses rule of reason and burden shifting in antitrust restraint of trade cases)
- Standard Oil Co. of N.J. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911) (Origin of "rule of reason" analysis in antitrust law)
- Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1 (2006) (Differentiates per se from rule of reason antitrust analysis)