Summary
The Fourth Circuit reviews a preliminary injunction allowing four student-athletes to play NCAA football despite the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule, which counts junior-college enrollment toward eligibility. The court holds that the appeal is not moot because the dispute is capable of repetition yet evading review. It vacates the preliminary injunction and remands, concluding that the players had not made the indisputably clear showing required for a mandatory injunction, while noting that the NCAA’s challenge to the injunction of the Restitution Rule was waived.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appeal was moot after the 2025–26 football season ended.
- Whether the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception preserved appellate jurisdiction.
- Whether the NCAA's JUCO Rule and Five-Year Rule are commercial restraints subject to Sherman Act scrutiny.
- Whether the district court applied the correct Section 1 antitrust framework in evaluating the Players' likelihood of success on a preliminary injunction.
- Whether the district court adequately required proof of anticompetitive effects, market power, and a properly defined relevant market.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting a mandatory preliminary injunction.
Holdings
- The appeal was not moot because the challenged eligibility rules presented an issue capable of repetition yet evading review.
- The NCAA's JUCO Rule and Five-Year Rule are commercial restraints and are not exempt from scrutiny under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
- The JUCO Rule and Five-Year Rule must be evaluated under the full rule-of-reason framework, not quick-look analysis.
- A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief under a rule-of-reason theory must present evidence or a coherent theory showing anticompetitive effects in the relevant market, including market power where required.
- The district court clearly erred by adopting the Players' proposed relevant market without making factual findings or conducting a fact-specific analysis of market conditions and reasonable substitutes.
- The district court abused its discretion by granting the mandatory preliminary injunction because the Players did not make the required clear and indisputably clear showing of likely success on the merits.
Key quotations
“We simply hold that the Five-Year Rule and the JUCO rule are not exempt from Sherman Act scrutiny.” (23)
“Full rule of reason analysis should apply here.” (27)
“We are merely holding that the Players presented no factual evidence here and therefore clearly failed to meet their burden of proof.” (33)
“For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court’s order granting the Players’ motion for a preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings.” (34)
Factual background
The Players each spent at least two years at a junior college before transferring to West Virginia University. Under the NCAA's JUCO Rule and Five-Year Rule, their junior-college enrollment counted toward the five-year eligibility period, rendering them ineligible for the 2025–26 Division I football season. The NCAA denied each Player's waiver request, while the district court issued a preliminary injunction allowing them to play. The NCAA's later Pavia waiver affected only the four-seasons-of-competition component, not the five-year eligibility limit.
Procedural history
The Players sued the NCAA on August 1, 2025, alleging Sherman Act and state-law violations. The district court granted a preliminary injunction on August 20, 2025, requiring the NCAA to allow the Players to participate in the 2025–26 football season. Although that season ended before oral argument, the Fourth Circuit held the appeal was not moot under the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception. The court vacated the injunction because the district court applied an incorrect or insufficiently demanding antitrust analysis and failed to properly define the relevant market, then remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
Vacate the district court's order granting the preliminary injunction and conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including application of full rule-of-reason analysis and a fact-specific determination of the relevant market. The injunction against application of the Restitution Rule was not challenged on appeal and therefore remained in place.