Cases & Developments

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a current collegiate baseball player at the University of Tennessee who previously played for two years at Walters State Junior College and three years at UNC Chapel Hill, alleged that the NCAA’s eligibility bylaws violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The court noted that a recent court decision providing a blanket waiver for former junior college athletes did not apply to plaintiff because he would use his extra year of eligibility in the 2024-2025 academic year, not the 2025-2026 academic year. Noting that the court must review these types of claims under a “Rule of Reason” analysis, the court concluded that the record does not “establish that the JUCO Rule has substantial anticompetitive effects” and thus plaintiff cannot “demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on his Sherman Act claim….” The court also assumed that the JUCO Rule was commercial for the purposes of this claim. Applying the rule of reason analysis, the court disagreed with plaintiff’s contentions that the JUCO rule (1) “dissuades athletes from attending junior colleges,” (2) “provides competitive advantages to Division 1 schools vis-à-vis junior colleges when the institutions are recruiting prospective athletes [b]ecause athletes’ time at junior colleges counts against their Division 1 eligibility,” and (3) harms consumers because in preventing former JUCO athletes from playing four full seasons at the Division 1 level, Division 1 teams are less competitive which harms consumers of collegiate athletics. The court found defendant’s reasoning that the JUCO rule “restricts the supply of athletes, which increases competition among [all institutions] and drives up compensation for all athletes” more compelling. Because the court found plaintiff did not satisfy the first step of the rule of reason analysis, it did not address steps two and three. The court did note that “[n]one of this is to say Plaintiff cannot ultimately succeed on the merits.” The court also concluded that plaintiff did not establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits for his state law claims. 

Order denying in part and taking under advisement in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a college baseball player and Kansas State University student, sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) to obtain eligibility to participate in the Spring 2025 baseball season at the University. Prior to transferring to Kansas State, plaintiff played several seasons of baseball at Orange Coast Junior College and the University of Houston, respectively. Turning first to Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, the court ruled that Plaintiff was unable to demonstrate a “likelihood of success on the merits of his antitrust claim, nor ha[d] he shown an irreparable harm….” In disagreeing with Plaintiff’s argument that the NCAA bylaws violate the rule of reason test, the court found that the factual record did not indicate that the NCAA’s intercollegiate and five-year rules were anticompetitive. Finally, while it concluded Plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing a substantial anticompetitive effect, the court also found that he would not have been able to prove irreparable harm. The court noted that any alleged irreparable harm is due, in part, to Plaintiff’s “own actions in waiting to file the present suit.” Ultimately, however, the court wrote that other federal courts have found a likelihood of success in similar cases, and that with the benefit of a more complete record, Plaintiff may yet succeed in obtaining a preliminary injunction.