143 F.4th 859
7th Cir.2025Background
- Nyzier Fourqurean, a college football player at UW-Madison, sought to play a fifth season, but the NCAA’s "Five-Year Rule" bars athletes from participating in more than four seasons per sport in a five-year window.
- Fourqurean was denied a waiver for an extra season, despite special circumstances during his early career and new opportunities for athlete compensation after NCAA NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) changes and revenue-sharing settlements.
- Fourqurean sued the NCAA, claiming the Five-Year Rule is an illegal restraint of trade under § 1 of the Sherman Act and sought a preliminary injunction to block its enforcement.
- The district court granted the preliminary injunction, relying on NCAA v. Alston and shifting legal trends, finding a likelihood of anticompetitive effects.
- The NCAA appealed, arguing market definition was not established and exclusion alone does not show anticompetitive harm; the Seventh Circuit reversed the injunction, finding Fourqurean did not meet the burden for likelihood of success.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sherman Act Violation | NCAA eligibility rule is an unreasonable trade restraint that | Rule is procompetitive and eligibility rules essential | Plaintiff failed to show anticompetitive effect or appropriate market definition; |
| excludes athletes from the relevant labor market | to collegiate sports; exclusion not sufficient for claim | preliminary injunction reversed. | |
| Relevant Market Definition | Alston already defined relevant market as men's Division I | Plaintiff failed to independently define the market | Alston did not decide market definition here; plaintiff must prove market. |
| football; market power presumed | and must do so; current conditions differ from Alston | Plaintiff’s allegations not enough for preliminary injunction stage. | |
| Evidence of Anticompetitive | Exclusion from fifth season and impact on NIL compensation show | Exclusion of one player is not sufficient; no evidence | No substantial evidence linking rule to negative market effects or depressed |
| Effect | anti-competitive effects | of market-wide harm or harm to NCAA rivals | compensation for student-athletes. |
| Procompetitive Justification | NCAA’s rationale (academic progression, differentiation) is pre- | Rule necessary for college sports integrity and amateur- | No showing made that rule is essential; NCAA failed to prove harm if injunction |
| textual; new transfer and NIL rules undermine justification | ism; preserves distinction from professional football | sustained, but plaintiff's harm was not sufficiently likely on current record. |
Key Cases Cited
- NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021) (rejected NCAA’s special treatment under antitrust law and confirmed application of Sherman Act to rules on student-athlete benefits)
- NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984) (applied antitrust scrutiny to NCAA rules on television rights, established restraint of trade analysis for NCAA regulations)
- Ohio v. American Express Co., 585 U.S. 529 (2018) (clarified rule of reason analysis by requiring proof of anticompetitive effects in a defined relevant market)
- Nat’l Soc. of Pro. Eng’rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978) (established fact-specific, competitive effects assessment for rule of reason analysis)
- Catalano, Inc. v. Target Sales, Inc., 446 U.S. 643 (1980) (defined per se antitrust violations)
- United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc., 405 U.S. 596 (1972) (market allocation as per se Sherman Act violation)
- Nw. Wholesale Stationers v. Pac. Stationery & Printing, 472 U.S. 284 (1985) (distinguished group boycotts and application of rule of reason vs. per se rule)
- Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984) (application of rule of reason to exclusive agreements)
- Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380 (7th Cir. 1984) (proof requirements for showing exclusionary harm in antitrust case)
- Radovich v. NFL, 352 U.S. 445 (1957) (antitrust liability in sports labor exclusions)
- Agnew v. NCAA, 683 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 2012) (Sherman Act applies to NCAA bylaws generally)