The Antitrust Attorney Blog
Author: Ruth Glaeser
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an injunction that would have allowed University of Wisconsin–Madison football player Nyzier Fourqurean to play a fifth season, ruling that his antitrust allegations failed to clearly define the relevant market.
Background from the Seventh Circuit’s Opinion
UW-Madison footballer Nyzier Fourqurean alleged that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) violated the Sherman Act by restricting student-athletes to four seasons of intercollegiate competition per sport, a policy commonly referred to as “The Five-Year Rule.” The Five-Year-Rule restricts an athlete’s participation to four years of college-level play. For example, once a student enrolls full-time in college, they have five calendar years to complete their four seasons of athletic eligibility in a given sport. The clock starts the day they first enroll full-time, not when they first compete. While there are exceptions, this rule is meant to balance athletics with academics, and to ensure college sports don’t become prolonged semi-professional careers.
Here, the district court reasoned that the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) is the relevant market. Because the Five-Year Rule excluded Fourqurean from this market, the court determined it likely had anticompetitive effects. On that basis, the district court granted Fourqurean’s injunction, temporarily blocking the NCAA from enforcing the rule, and concluding that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his Sherman Act claim.
The Sherman Act is a federal antitrust law that limits and penalizes anticompetitive conduct. It has often been used to challenge NCAA rules limiting what college athletes can receive and how they remain eligible to compete. Courts have reached varying conclusions on these challenges. But the Supreme Court’s decision in Alston v. NCAA held that certain NCAA restrictions on education-related benefits violated antitrust law. That ruling opened the door to broader reforms in athlete compensation. For instance, a recent settlement now allows schools to share roughly $20 million in name, image, and likeness (NIL) revenue with student-athletes during the 2025–26 season.
Bolstered by the Alston decision, student-athletes have now challenged not just the bylaws regulating compensation, but also those concerning eligibility, including the limits of the Five-Year-Rule.
Seeking to profit from the new revenue-sharing opportunities, Fourqurean sought to challenge the Five-Year Rule for another year of playing eligibility under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, alleging that the rule was an illegal restraint of trade because it prevented student-athletes, like Fourqurean, from competing in NCAA Division I football and preventing them from maximizing economic opportunities from NIL income.
The Court’s Analysis
The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s injunction, finding that Fourqurean was unlikely to win on his antitrust claim because he had not clearly defined the relevant market. An injunction served as a temporary pause on the NCAA rule to prevent unfair harm to the athlete while the case proceeded. To obtain this pause, Fourqurean needed to show he was likely to succeed on the merits of his case.
Antitrust claims under the Sherman Act are typically evaluated using one of three approaches: the per se rule, the quick-look doctrine or the rule of reason. In this case, both parties agreed that the rule of reason applies. This standard requires a court to examine whether a rule actually harms competition, whether it serves a legitimate purpose, and whether any benefits outweigh its anticompetitive effects.
To show harm, Fourqurean needed to prove that the rule was likely to prevent at least one significant competitor of the NCAA from competing in the relevant market and provide evidence of the NCAA’s market share. But the only evidence he offered was that he personally was excluded from college football. He also relied on cases where the market definition wasn’t disputed, unlike here. In antitrust law, a relevant market helps define who competes with whom and where. Its two components are (1) the Product Market: the set of products or services that are reasonably interchangeable; and (2) the Geographic Market: the area where the competition takes place. Together, these components define the “playing field” of competition, and help business and enforcers assess market power, competition, and potential consumer harm.
Here, Fourqurean needed to define the relevant market in which the NCAA competed. Even if that market were Division I FBS football, as it was in Alston, Fourqurean faced a bigger problem. To prove anticompetitive effects, he needed to show that the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule made it harder for current or potential rivals to compete, giving the NCAA the power to depress athlete pay. He did not. Instead, he only showed his own exclusion, and since he isn’t a competitor of the NCAA, his case didn’t connect his exclusion to any harm to actual or potential rivals. As a result, the Court of Appeals reversed his injunction.
What’s Next?
Despite this setback, Fourqurean’s antitrust lawsuit remains active in the lower court. But with the 2025–26 college football season already underway, any relief this year may no longer make a meaningful difference. The Seventh Circuit’s decision doesn’t stop him from pursuing his antitrust claims in the future, meaning the broader legal battle over the Five-Year Rule could continue.