In a major victory for the NCAA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has reversed a district court's preliminary injunction giving University of Wisconsin defensive back Nyzier Fourqurean another year of eligibility, leaving Fourqurean's future as a college football player in doubt.
The appellate court's July 16 decision marks a notable development in the growing body of litigation testing the NCAA's regulatory authority under federal antitrust law and highlights the rigorous standards athletes must meet when challenging NCAA eligibility rules. This case in particular warns student-athletes that, to prevail under the Sherman Act, they must define a relevant market and present broader, systemic harms. Presenting individualized claims may not be enough.
Fourqurean, who transferred from Division II Grand Valley State University after two seasons, argued that the NCAA's eligibility rules—specifically the cap on four seasons of competition within a five-year window—unlawfully restrain competition in violation of the Sherman Act. His case had momentum after Diego Pavia, who spent two seasons playing in junior college, won a preliminary injunction, prompting the NCAA to issue a limited waiver granting an extra year of eligibility to former junior college players like Pavia.
The district court granted Fourqurean a preliminary injunction, permitting him to practice and participate in spring training and clearing the way for him to compete during the season. The NCAA appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which reversed the district court's preliminary injunction, holding that Fourqurean had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits.
Applying the rule of reason framework, the Seventh Circuit emphasized that a plaintiff must present a fact-specific showing that the challenged restraint has anticompetitive effects in a defined market. Fourqurean's reliance solely on his own exclusion from participation was insufficient. The Seventh Circuit clarified that personal exclusion is not evidence that the NCAA's eligibility rules distort market competition, such as by creating or maintaining dominance or suppressing athlete compensation.
Judge Kenneth Ripple dissented on the basis that reversing the injunction causes irreparable harm to Fourqurean, who now lacks meaningful avenues, such as the NFL draft, to further pursue his football career. Judge Ripple pointed out that allowing Fourqurean to compete this season would not have resulted in any harm to the NCAA.
The Fourqurean decision is undoubtedly a major win for the NCAA as eligibility suits continue to be filed following the Pavia case. The Seventh Circuit's insistence on a market-wide showing of anticompetitive effects under the Sherman Act places a heavy evidentiary burden on individual athletes moving forward.
For more sports law analysis and insights, please contact the authors or visit the Venable Sports Law Group web page.