Nyzier Fourqurean v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 25-1187
NYZIER F OURQUREAN ,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
NATIONAL C OLLEGIATE A THLETIC A SSOCIATION ,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin.
No. 25-cv-68 — William M. Conley, Judge.
____________________
A RGUED M AY 28, 2025 — DECIDED J ULY 16, 2025
____________________
Before R IPPLE, ST. EVE, and K OLAR , Circuit Judges.
ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Nyzier Fourqurean, a member of the
University of Wisconsin-Madison (“UW-Madison”)’s football
team, contends that the National Collegiate Athletic Associa-
tion (“NCAA”) has unreasonably restrained trade, in viola-
tion of § 1 of the Sherman Act, by restricting student-athletes
to four seasons of intercollegiate competition per sport—an
aspect of the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule. He sought, and the

-- 1 of 30 --

2 No. 25-1187
district court granted, a preliminary injunction enjoining the
NCAA from enforcing its Five-Year Rule to prevent him from
playing a fifth season of college football.
The district court reasoned that the Supreme Court’s deci-
sion in NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021), established that
men’s NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (“FBS”)
football is a relevant market, and because the Five-Year Rule
excludes Fourqurean from this market, it has likely anticom-
petitive effects. The court thus concluded that Fourqurean is
likely to succeed on the merits of his § 1 claim.
Market definition, however, was not at issue in Alston.
Fourqurean must independently define the relevant market,
which he has not attempted to do. Furthermore, even if men’s
NCAA Division I FBS football is the relevant market, Four-
qurean’s exclusion from this market alone does not suffice to
show likely anticompetitive effects. At this stage of the litiga-
tion, Fourqurean has therefore failed to meet his burden of
establishing some likelihood that he will prevail on the merits
of his § 1 claim, and the district court should not have granted
his motion for a preliminary injunction.
I. Background
An effort among Harvard, Princeton, and Yale to reduce
violence in college football through rule adjustments led to
the creation of the NCAA in 1905. Alston, 594 U.S. at 75–76.
Since then, the NCAA’s membership and responsibilities
have grown, turning the NCAA into a “sprawling enterprise.”
Id. at 79. Its membership comprises about 1,100 schools. Id.
And the NCAA has adopted a “thicket” of bylaws governing
not only playing rules but also eligibility to play and compen-
sation, among other aspects of college sports. Id.

-- 2 of 30 --

No. 25-1187 3
The NCAA has long defended its bylaws against Sherman
Act § 1 challenges on the ground that they do not regulate
commercial transactions, so § 1, which prohibits agreements
“in restraint of trade or commerce,” 15 U.S.C. § 1, does not
apply. This argument has met mixed success in the appellate
courts. Compare Bassett v. NCAA, 528 F.3d 426, 433 (6th Cir.
2008) (reasoning that rules combatting commercialism in col-
lege sports by restricting payments to athletic recruits are not
restraints on “commerce”); Smith v. NCAA, 139 F.3d 180, 185–
86 (3d Cir. 1998) (holding that the Sherman Act does not apply
to “the NCAA’s promulgation of eligibility requirements” be-
cause they “primarily seek to ensure fair competition in inter-
collegiate athletics”), vacated on other grounds by NCAA v.
Smith, 525 U.S. 459 (1999), with O’Bannon v. NCAA, 802 F.3d
1049, 1066 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that the NCAA’s compen-
sation bylaws fall within the ambit of the Sherman Act). Our
court flatly rejected this argument in Agnew v. NCAA, 683 F.3d
328, 340–41 (7th Cir. 2012) (holding that “the Sherman Act ap-
plies to the NCAA bylaws generally”).
Alternatively, the NCAA has argued that its bylaws sur-
vive scrutiny under § 1 of the Sherman Act because they are
necessary to create the product of college sports. In its seminal
case applying the Sherman Act to the NCAA, NCAA v. Board
of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), the
Supreme Court rejected this argument as a justification for the
NCAA’s restrictions on televising college football games. The
Court held that these restrictions were unnecessary to market
college sports or maintain competitive balance, and ulti-
mately that they violated § 1. Id. at 113–15, 117–19. Along the
way to reaching its holding in Board of Regents, the Court dis-
tinguished restrictions on televising football games from rules
that help maintain the “revered tradition of amateurism in

-- 3 of 30 --

4 No. 25-1187
college sports” or “the preservation of the student-athlete in
higher education,” id. at 120.
After Board of Regents, rising revenue from college basket-
ball and football, alongside looser restrictions on the benefits
NCAA member schools could provide to student-athletes,
put increasing pressure on the NCAA’s arguments that re-
strictions on student-athlete compensation were not commer-
cial in nature or that the promotion of amateurism in college
sports justified them. See Alston, 594 U.S. at 93 (noting these
changes in market realities). These circumstances eventually
led to the Supreme Court’s watershed Alston decision.
In 2014, current and former student-athletes who played
NCAA basketball and football filed a class action against the
NCAA and several of its conferences challenging the NCAA’s
student-athlete compensation framework. After years of liti-
gation and a bench trial, a district court agreed that NCAA
limits on education-related compensation or benefits violated
the Sherman Act, and it enjoined those limits. See id. at 80, 84–
85. Both sides appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed.
See id. at 85–86. Only the NCAA appealed to the Supreme
Court, which in 2021 also affirmed. Id. at 86, 107.
The Alston Court rejected both a request by the NCAA for
“special dispensation from the Sherman Act on the ground
that” the NCAA “seeks to maintain amateurism in college
sports as part of serving the societally important non-com-
mercial objective of higher education,” id. at 94–96 (citation
modified); and two versions of the argument that its bylaws
are necessary to produce college sports, id. at 90–91, 101–02;
see also id. at 109–110 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).

-- 4 of 30 --

No. 25-1187 5
Alston paved the way for significant changes in student-
athlete compensation—far beyond the direct effect of the Al-
ston ruling, which concerned only education-related compen-
sation and benefits. Indeed, shortly after oral argument in this
appeal, in a trio of antitrust cases against the NCAA and sev-
eral of its conferences, a district court granted final approval
for a settlement that permits the NCAA’s member schools to
directly pay student-athletes for the first time. In re Coll. Ath-
lete NIL Litig., No. 20-CV-03919 CW, 2025 WL 1675820 (N.D.
Cal. June 6, 2025). Under a new revenue sharing model estab-
lished as part of the settlement, each NCAA Division I mem-
ber school party to the settlement can distribute about $20 mil-
lion in name, image and likeness (“NIL”) revenue to student-
athletes over the 2025–26 season. Id. at *18.
In addition, Alston emboldened plaintiffs to challenge not
just NCAA bylaws regulating compensation but also those
concerning eligibility. A coalition of states filed suit against
the NCAA in 2023, challenging the NCAA’s transfer eligibil-
ity rule, which required students-athletes who transfer more
than once to sit out one year of competition. The parties ulti-
mately resolved the case through a settlement permanently
barring restrictions on transfer eligibility. Ohio et al. v. NCAA,
No. 1:23-cv-00100 (N.D. W.V. final judgment and permanent
injunction entered Aug. 30, 2024).
More recently, some student-athletes have challenged as-
pects of the NCAA’s “Five-Year Rule,” which restricts stu-
dent-athletes to four seasons of competition in any one sport
within a five-year window. See Elad v. NCAA, No. CV 25-1981,
2025 WL 1202014 (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2025) (granting a prelimi-
nary injunction allowing the plaintiff additional eligibility);
Pavia v. NCAA, 760 F. Supp. 3d 527 (M.D. Tenn. 2024) (same).

-- 5 of 30 --

6 No. 25-1187
But see Goldstein v. NCAA, No. 3:25-CV-00027-TES, 2025 WL
662809 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 28, 2025) (rejecting a request for a pre-
liminary injunction). Fourqurean, too, challenges an aspect of
this rule. He has already played four seasons of college foot-
ball: two seasons at Grand Valley State University (“GVSU”),
in the NCAA’s Division II, and two seasons at UW-Madison,
in the NCAA’s Division I. He graduated from UW-Madison
with a bachelor’s degree in December 2024, but he would like
to play another season at UW-Madison—in part to profit from
the new revenue-sharing opportunities created by the settle-
ment in In re College Athlete NIL Litigation.
The NCAA’s Five-Year Rule stands in his way. So in De-
cember 2024, UW-Madison filed a request with the NCAA on
behalf of Fourqurean for a waiver of the Five-Year Rule, citing
circumstances present during his first season: the fewer total
snaps Fourqurean completed in this season relative to later
seasons, the lack of roster depth, team injuries, blow-out vic-
tories, and the death of his father. The NCAA denied Four-
qurean’s waiver request in January 2025, and Fourqurean re-
sponded by immediately filing this suit.
Fourqurean argues that the Five-Year Rule constitutes an
illegal restraint of trade or commerce under § 1 of the Sher-
man Act because it prevents student-athletes like Fourqurean
from competing in NCAA Division I football. Along with his
complaint, Fourqurean filed a motion under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 65 for a preliminary injunction enjoining the
NCAA from enforcing its Five-Year Rule. Fourqurean sought
a ruling on this motion by February 7, 2025, the deadline to
declare for the National Football League (“NFL”) draft.
On February 6, 2025, after briefing and a preliminary in-
junction hearing, the district court concluded that Fourqurean

-- 6 of 30 --

No. 25-1187 7
had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his Sher-
man Act claim. To reach this conclusion, the court relied on
Alston and the “trend in the law since Alston.” Fourqurean v.
NCAA, 771 F. Supp. 3d 1043, 1050 (W.D. Wis. 2025). The court
reasoned that Fourqurean did not need to define the relevant
market because the “Supreme Court had already defined it”
in Alston as men’s Division I football—and under Alston, per
the court, the NCAA and its members enjoy monopsony
power in this market. Id. at 1051. In the court’s view, the
NCAA’s monopsony power, combined with Fourqurean’s ev-
idence that the Five-Year Rule excludes student-athletes from
playing college football after four seasons of competition,
“when their marketability for NIL income is more likely than
not to be at its apex,” sufficed to establish that the Five-Year
Rule has an anticompetitive effect. Id. at 1052.
The district court agreed with the NCAA that the Five-
Year Rule also has a procompetitive benefit by “linking a stu-
dent-athlete’s college athletic career to ordinary degree pro-
gression,” which “differentiates NCAA Division I football
from professional football leagues like the NFL.” Id. But the
court concluded that the NCAA could achieve this benefit
with a less anticompetitive means: a Five-Year Rule with
“meaningful exceptions . . . to avoid unfairness to student-ath-
letes whose individual circumstances may justify a depar-
ture….” Id. at 1054. After evaluating the other requirements
for a preliminary injunction, the district court granted a pre-
liminary injunction enjoining the NCAA from enforcing its
Five-Year Rule against Fourqurean “absent a more meaning-
ful demonstration that exceptions to that rule should not ap-
ply to [his] requested, additional season of eligibility given
the unique circumstances surrounding his 2021–2022 season
at Division II GVSU.” Id. at 1058–59.

-- 7 of 30 --

8 No. 25-1187
The NCAA appealed the preliminary injunction, invoking
our appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1292(a)(1).
II. Discussion
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy
never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To secure a preliminary injunction,
a plaintiff “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the
merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the ab-
sence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in
his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id.
at 20. In evaluating the merits element, courts “approach the
record from a neutral and objective viewpoint, assessing the
merits as … they are likely to be decided after more complete
discovery and litigation.” Doe v. Univ. of S. Indiana, 43 F.4th
784, 792 (7th Cir. 2022). This approach differs significantly
from the approach at the motion to dismiss stage or the sum-
mary judgment stage. See id. at 791 (at the preliminary injunc-
tion stage, a court does not accept the plaintiff’s allegations as
true, nor give him the benefit of all reasonable inferences, nor
give him the benefit of conflicting evidence).
In an appeal from a grant of a preliminary injunction, we
review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo, its fac-
tual findings for clear error, and its balancing of the equities
for an abuse of discretion. Id. We start and end our analysis
here with Fourqurean’s likelihood of success on the merits.
Fourqurean claims that the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule vio-
lates the Sherman Act’s prohibition on agreements “in re-
straint of trade or commerce….” 15 U.S.C. § 1. The Supreme
Court “has ‘long recognized that in view of the common law
and the law in this country when the Sherman Act was

-- 8 of 30 --

No. 25-1187 9
passed, the phrase ‘restraint of trade’ is best read to mean ‘un-
due restraint.’” Alston, 594 U.S. at 81 (quoting Ohio v. Am. Ex-
press Co. (“Amex”), 585 U.S. 529, 540 (2018)); see also State Oil
Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 10 (1997) (“[T]his Court has long rec-
ognized that Congress intended to outlaw only unreasonable
restraints.”). Whether a challenged restraint is undue or un-
reasonable for purposes of the Sherman Act depends on its
effect on competition, “especially its capacity to reduce out-
put and increase price.” Alston, 594 U.S. at 88; see also Cal. Den-
tal Ass’n v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756, 780 (1999) (identifying the “es-
sential” question in this context as “whether or not the chal-
lenged restraint enhances competition” (quoting Bd. of Re-
gents, 468 U.S. at 104)). The inquiry needed to make this de-
termination changes with “the circumstances, details, and
logic of a restraint.” Cal. Dental, 526 U.S. at 781.
A. Sherman Act Framework
Caselaw recognizes three Sherman Act frameworks: the
rule of reason, which the district court applied, “quick look”
analysis, and per se rules. “Determining whether a restraint is
undue for purposes of the Sherman Act ‘presumptively’ calls
for … ‘rule of reason analysis.’” Alston, 594 U.S. at 81 (quoting
Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1, 5 (2006)). This analysis in-
volves a fact-specific assessment of “whether the challenged
agreement is one that promotes competition or one that sup-
presses competition.” Nat’l Soc. of Pro. Eng’rs v. United States,
435 U.S. 679, 691 (1978). To prevail under the rule of reason, a
plaintiff must offer evidence of anticompetitive effects.
Certain kinds of restraints, however, qualify as illegal per
se: agreements between two or more competitors to fix prices,
otherwise known as horizontal price-fixing agreements, see
Catalano, Inc. v. Target Sales, Inc., 446 U.S. 643, 647 (1980) (per

-- 9 of 30 --

10 No. 25-1187
curium); market allocation, see United States v. Topco Assocs.,
Inc., 405 U.S. 596, 608 (1972); certain types of group boycotts
or concerted refusals to deal, see Nw. Wholesale Stationers v.
Pac. Stationery & Printing, 472 U.S. 284, 294–95 (1985); and
some kinds of tying arrangements, see Illinois Tool Works Inc.
v. Indep. Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28, 34–37 (2006).
When challenging a restraint that falls within one of these
per se categories, the plaintiff can establish a violation of § 1 of
the Sherman Act without evidence of anticompetitive effects
because the Supreme Court has deemed these restraints “so
plainly anticompetitive and so often lack any redeeming vir-
tue that they are conclusively presumed illegal....” Broad. Mu-
sic, Inc. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 441 U.S. 1, 7–8 (1979) (ci-
tation modified); see also Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745
F.2d 1101, 1108 (7th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by
Schmees v. HC1.COM, Inc., 77 F.4th 483 (7th Cir. 2023) (ex-
plaining that “when the plaintiff adequately states a per se vi-
olation of § 1 of the Sherman Act,” “an allegation of anticom-
petitive effects is not required” because “conduct constituting
a per se violation is viewed by the law as so inimical to free
competition that the pernicious effects are conclusively pre-
sumed; stated in another manner, per se violations of the anti-
trust laws are anticompetitive by definition”); Havoco of Am.,
Ltd. v. Shell Oil Co., 626 F.2d 549, 555 (7th Cir. 1980) (same).
Between the rule of reason and per se rules, an abbreviated
or “quick-look” analysis may suffice when the anticompeti-
tive or procompetitive effects of a restraint are sufficiently ob-
vious—but the restraint does not fall neatly within a per se il-
legal category. On one side, an “abbreviated or ‘quick-look’
analysis” may be appropriate when “an observer with even a
rudimentary understanding of economics could conclude

-- 10 of 30 --

No. 25-1187 11
that the arrangements in question would have an anticompet-
itive effect on customers and markets.” California Dental, 526
U.S. at 770. On the flip side, “some restraints may be so obvi-
ously incapable of harming competition” that a court can ap-
prove the restraints in the “twinkling of an eye.” Alston, 594
U.S. at 88 (quoting Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. at 110 n.39).
Both parties nominally agree that ordinary rule of reason
analysis applies in this case. Fourqurean agreed at oral argu-
ment, and the NCAA ‘s brief noted, “the rule of reason stand-
ard … applies here.” At the same time, however, the NCAA
argues that its eligibility bylaws should be considered pre-
sumptively procompetitive, which amounts to an argument
for quick-look approval, not the rule of reason.
In Alston, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that
“restraints necessary to produce a game,” such as agreements
“on things like how many players may be on the field or the
time allotted for play,” might qualify for quick-look approval.
594 U.S. at 90–91 (citation modified). In this case, the NCAA
does not argue that the Five-Year Rule is necessary to produce
a game in the same way as rules about the number of players
on the field or playing time. Rather, the NCAA makes the sub-
tly different argument that the Five-Year Rule is necessary to
produce “collegiate athletics.” In support of this argument,
the NCAA relies on our comment in Agnew that eligibility by-
laws “define what it means to be an amateur or a student-ath-
lete, and are therefore essential to the very existence of the
product of college football.” 683 F.3d at 343.
The NCAA relies too heavily on Agnew. Eligibility bylaws
were not at issue in Agnew, which concerned compensation
bylaws. In that case, prior to Alston, we interpreted language
in Board of Regents as “a license to find” a presumption of

-- 11 of 30 --

12 No. 25-1187
procompetitiveness in favor of NCAA bylaws “clearly meant
to help maintain the ‘revered tradition of amateurism in col-
lege sports’ or the ‘preservation of the student-athlete in
higher education’….” Id. at 341–43 (quoting Bd. of Regents, 468
U.S. at 120). We reasoned that this category included eligibil-
ity bylaws—but not the compensation bylaws actually at is-
sue in Agnew. Id. at 343–45. That is, Agnew discussed eligibility
bylaws only as a foil for compensation bylaws. In this context,
while Agnew may suggest that courts should consider the spe-
cific characteristics of different NCAA bylaws when assessing
competitive effects, Agnew does not resolve whether eligibil-
ity bylaws are necessary to produce college football—or what
other procompetitive benefits they may have.
Furthermore, to the extent the NCAA is attempting to “re-
label [the Five-Year Rule] as a product feature and declare [it]
‘immune from § 1 scrutiny,’” Alston, 594 U.S. at 101 (quoting
Am. Needle, Inc. v. NFL, 560 U.S. 183, 199 n.7 (2010)), the Su-
preme Court already rejected this type of maneuver in Alston,
id. The key question for determining whether the Five-Year
Rule is so incapable of harming competition so as to justify
quick-look approval is whether college football can proceed
without this rule. See id. at 91. The NCAA has not offered any
argument or evidence that its member schools would disband
their football teams if the NCAA eliminated this rule.
Accordingly, the district court properly applied the rule of
reason—and we, too, apply the rule of reason here.
B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
As evidence of anticompetitive effects from the NCAA’s
Five-Year Rule, Fourqurean offers his own exclusion from
participating in college football. The Sherman Act does not

-- 12 of 30 --

No. 25-1187 13
condemn all agreements that exclude competitors. See Nw.
Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pac. Stationery & Printing Co., 472
U.S. 284, 289, 295–98 (1985) (concluding that the expulsion of
Pacific Stationery and Printing Co. from a cooperative buying
group “was certainly a restraint of trade,” but the adverse ef-
fect on Pacific did not, on its own, establish a Sherman Act
violation); Jefferson Par. Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2,
26–31 (1984), abrogated on other grounds by Ill. Tool Works Inc. v.
Indep. Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006) (finding insufficient evidence
in the record to show that an exclusive contract between a
hospital and a group of anesthesiologists unreasonably re-
strained competition in violation of the Sherman Act, alt-
hough the contract prevented a non-affiliated anesthesiolo-
gist, the plaintiff, from providing anesthesia to his patients at
the hospital); Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d
380, 394 (7th Cir. 1984).
To decide whether an agreement that excludes competi-
tors unreasonably restrains trade or commerce in violation of
§ 1 the Sherman Act, we consider its potential to deprive the
public of the benefits of competition, especially competitive
prices, taking into account market power and market struc-
ture. See Alston, 594 U.S. at 88 (describing the rule of reason as
“‘a fact-specific assessment of market power and market
structure’ aimed at assessing the challenged restraint’s ‘actual
effect on competition’—especially its capacity to reduce out-
put and increase price” (quoting Amex, 584 U.S. at 541)); Apex
Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469, 500–01 (1940) (a restraint
does not violate § 1 “unless the restraint is shown to have or
is intended to have an effect upon prices in the market or oth-
erwise to deprive purchasers or consumers of the advantages
which they derive from free competition”).

-- 13 of 30 --

14 No. 25-1187
For restraints that exclude competitors, including exclu-
sive dealing agreements and group boycotts, the usual anti-
trust concern is that the parties to the agreement are trying to
create, protect, or enhance a dominant position in the market.
See United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 399 F.3d 181, 191 (3d
Cir. 2005) (artificial teeth manufacturer’s exclusivity policy
with dealers helped keep “sales of competing teeth below the
critical level necessary for any rival to pose a real threat to [the
manufacturer’s] market share”); Fashion Originators' Guild of
Am. v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457, 461–62, 466–68 (1941) (clothing de-
signers’ refusal to sell to retailers who also purchased clothing
from manufacturers of knockoffs of clothing designs operated
to exclude those manufacturers from the market). A dominant
position can confer market power, or the ability to set prices
and output (e.g., an employer’s ability to depress wages be-
low the competitive level). See Alston, 594 U.S. at 86.
One of the cases the dissent cites, Radovich v. NFL, 352 U.S.
445 (1957), involved such a theory. The Radovich plaintiff, a
football player in the now-defunct All-America Conference,
alleged that his blacklisting by the NFL was part of a conspir-
acy by the NFL’s members to destroy the All-America Con-
ference “and thus to strengthen the monopolistic position of
the National Football League.” Id. at 449.
Fourqurean has made no effort to establish this theory of
anticompetitive effects. To prove a Sherman Act violation un-
der this theory, a plaintiff “must prove that [the agreement] is
likely to keep at least one significant competitor of the defend-
ant from doing business in a relevant market” and that “the
anticompetitive effects (if any) of the exclusion outweigh any
benefits to competition from it.” Roland, 749 F.2d at 394. The
threshold issues are the relevant market and the defendant’s

-- 14 of 30 --

No. 25-1187 15
market share. See Prods. Liab. Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Crum & Forster
Ins. Cos., 682 F.2d 660, 644 (7th Cir. 1982). “[T]he relevant mar-
ket is defined as the area of effective competition,” which is
typically “the arena within which significant substitution in
consumption or production occurs.” Amex, 585 U.S. at 543 (ci-
tation modified). In the labor market context, as here, the mar-
ket is comprised of those employers seen by workers as rea-
sonably good substitutes. See Todd v. Exxon Corp., 275 F.3d
191, 202 (2d Cir. 2001) (discussing market definition in cases
involving buyer-side restraints challenged under § 1).
As an initial matter, Fourqurean relies entirely on Alston
to define the relevant market. In his and the district court’s
view, the Supreme Court in Alston established that men’s
NCAA Division I FBS football is a relevant market. But Four-
qurean overstates the scope of the Court’s ruling. The Alston
Court did not decide the question of market definition. In-
stead, it noted that the parties did not challenge the district
court’s definition of the relevant market as “the market for
athletic services in men’s and women’s Division I basketball
and FBS football” and “observ[ed] that the NCAA enjoys near
complete dominance of, and exercises monopsony power in,”
that market. Alston, 594 U.S. at 81 (citation modified).
We are also cognizant that “[w]hether an antitrust viola-
tion exists necessarily depends on a careful analysis of market
realities.” Id. at 93. The market realities for college sports have
changed in the four years since Alston. Indeed, Fourqurean
explains that he “would rather return to UW-Madison to play
Division I football” than declare for the NFL draft for reasons
including opportunities to profit from revenue sharing and
NIL—which did not exist pre-Alston.

-- 15 of 30 --

16 No. 25-1187
Recognizing that Alston does not define the relevant mar-
ket in this case, the dissent turns to Fourqurean’s complaint.
In the dissent’s view, Fourqurean’s assertions that “[t]he
NCAA and its member institutions control the highest and
most popular level of collegiate athletics” and that the NCAA
“possesses a dominant position in the relevant market” are
sufficient to define the market and establish the NCAA’s mar-
ket power at the preliminary injunction stage. In support of
this view, the dissent cites cases concerning the standard to
survive a motion to dismiss. As these cases recognize, “courts
hesitate to grant motions to dismiss for failure to plead a rel-
evant … market” because “market definition is a deeply fact-
intensive inquiry….” Todd, 275 F.3d at 199–200; accord Newcal
Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Off. Sol., 513 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2008).
The preliminary injunction inquiry, however, is a “decidedly
far more searching inquiry than the question of whether a
complaint properly alleges a claim for relief.” In re Fed. Bureau
of Prisons’ Execution Protocol Cases, 980 F.3d 123, 134 (D.C. Cir.
2020). We think that Fourqurean needs more than the sparse
and conclusory allegations the dissent identifies.
Even if men’s NCAA Division I FBS football is the relevant
market, Fourqurean has a more fundamental problem. To es-
tablish the theory of anticompetitive effects in cases such as
Dentsply, Fashion Originators’ Guild, and Radovich, Fourqurean
would need to show that the Five-Year Rule creates, protects,
or enhances the NCAA’s dominant position in the market—
and thus the NCAA’s ability to depress student-athlete com-
pensation below the competitive level—by making it more
difficult for the NCAA’s existing or potential rivals to com-
pete against the NCAA. But Fourqurean relies solely on his
own exclusion from participating in college football as proof
of anticompetitive effects. He is not a rival of the NCAA, and

-- 16 of 30 --

No. 25-1187 17
he has not drawn a link from his exclusion to an adverse effect
on an existing or potential rival of the NCAA. Compare Fashion
Originators' Guild, 312 U.S. at 461–62, 466–68 (boycott of retail-
ers who sold knockoffs of clothing designs caused retailers to
stop carrying knockoffs, which impaired knockoff manufac-
turers’ ability to compete against Guild members).
The dissent concludes that the Five-Year Rule depresses
student-athlete compensation by pushing out the most expe-
rienced players (a different theory of anticompetitive effects).
Fourqurean has offered no evidence in support of this mech-
anism for depressing compensation. Under ordinary princi-
ples of supply and demand, a restraint that limits the supply
of workers in a labor market would increase, not decrease,
worker compensation.* The Five-Year Rule may operate dif-
ferently, but the record contains no evidence that would allow
us to draw that conclusion.
* A restraint that limits the supply of workers in a labor market is dis-
tinguishable from a restraint that limits the mobility of workers within a
labor market, such as a no-poach agreement. As this court recognized in
Nichols v. Spencer Int’l Press, Inc., 371 F.2d 332 (7th Cir. 1967), one of the
cases the dissent cites, no-poach agreements diminish competition among
employers for each other’s workers. See id. at 336–37. They “make it im-
possible for the participants to ‘steal’ an employee from a different em-
ployer by offering a better salary or other terms,” which can depress
worker compensation, in the same way that market division agreements
among producers or distributors can increase customer prices. Phillip E.
Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust
Principles and Their Application ¶ 2013a (5th ed. May 2025 Update). The
Five-Year Rule does not reduce competition among the NCAA’s member
schools for each other’s players. Rather, the Five-Year Rule forces member
schools to compete over a smaller pool of eligible players.

-- 17 of 30 --

18 No. 25-1187
Given the dearth of evidence (or even allegations) of anti-
competitive effect offered by Fourqurean so far, he has failed
to show some likelihood that the Five-Year Rule constitutes
an unreasonable restraint of trade—and thus some likelihood
of success on the merits of his Sherman Act claim.
We do not exclude the possibility that on a fuller record,
Fourqurean will succeed in establishing his claim. We also
recognize that the 2025–26 college football season begins
soon. In this context, we encourage the parties and the district
court to expediate the coming litigation. While it is not our
prerogative to direct the parties how to proceed, we also note
that the NCAA’s bylaws allow the NCAA’s Committee for
Legislative Relief to grant “relief from application of NCAA
legislation to a particular situation in which no other entity
has the authority to act,” which appears to create some flexi-
bility for the NCAA to address the hardship to Fourqurean
that concerned the district court.
* * *
The judgment of the district court is
R EVERSED.

-- 18 of 30 --

No. 25-1187 19
R IPPLE, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
The panel reverses the district court’s grant of Mr. Four-
qurean’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Because, in my
view, Mr. Fourqurean plausibly alleges a relevant market in
which the NCAA has monopsony power and has engaged in
anticompetitive conduct not justified by procompetitive effi-
ciencies, I respectfully dissent.
I begin with the standard of review we employ when con-
sidering the grant of a preliminary injunction. I then assess
whether Mr. Fourqurean is likely to succeed on the merits of
his antitrust claim brought under § 1 of the Sherman Act. Fi-
nally, I turn to Mr. Fourqurean’s likelihood of suffering irrep-
arable harm.
I
A.
We review an appeal of a preliminary injunction for abuse
of discretion. See Lukaszczyk v. Cook County, 47 F.4th 587, 598
(7th Cir. 2022). “A district court abuses its discretion ‘when it
commits a clear error of fact or an error of law.’” Id. (quoting
Cassell v. Snyders, 990 F.3d 539, 545 (7th Cir. 2021)); see also Doe
v. Univ. of S. Indiana, 43 F.4th 784, 791 (7th Cir. 2022).
The concerns motivating deferential review are particu-
larly present here. “[S]ubstantial deference” is warranted
when we review district courts’ decisions on preliminary in-
junctions, “bearing in mind that the district judge had to act
in haste.” American Hosp. Supply Corp. v. Hosp. Prods. Ltd., 780
F.2d 589, 594–95 (7th Cir. 1986); see also Roland Mach. Co. v.
Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 390 (7th Cir. 1984) (discuss-
ing thoroughly the standard of review for the grant of a pre-
liminary injunction); Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971

-- 19 of 30 --

20 No. 25-1187
F.2d 6, 13 (7th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he district court’s ultimate
weighing of all four factors is entitled to great deference.”).
We are cognizant that “in dealing with the parties and their
witnesses and counsel in the hectic atmosphere of a prelimi-
nary-injunction proceeding the judge may have developed a
feel for the facts and the equities that remote appellate judges
cannot obtain from a transcript.” American Hosp. Supply Corp.,
780 F.2d at 595. “To reverse an order granting or denying a
preliminary injunction, therefore, it is not enough that we
think we would have acted differently in the district judge’s
shoes; we must have a strong conviction that he exceeded the
permissible bounds of judgment.” Id.
In Mr. Fourqurean’s case, time was especially of the es-
sence. He filed his complaint on January 29, 2025, the same
day that the NCAA denied his waiver request. The district
court entered its order granting a preliminary injunction on
February 6, 2025, the day before the deadline to enter the NFL
draft.
Additionally, when the grant of a preliminary injunction
is appealed, the Supreme Court counsels that we ought to
consider whether “the potential harms from reversing the in-
junction outweigh those of leaving it in place by mistake.”
Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 670 (2004). Here, reversing the
injunction potentially deprives Mr. Fourqurean of a season of
collegiate play to which he may be entitled, at a time when he
can no longer enter the NFL draft and therefore has, as a prac-
tical matter, no other way of forwarding his football career. In
stark contrast, the NCAA has identified no harm it would suf-
fer were the injunction to stand.

-- 20 of 30 --

No. 25-1187 21
B.
The parties (and all the judicial officers who have partici-
pated in this case) agree that Mr. Fourqurean’s claim should
be evaluated under the rule of reason. Mr. Fourqurean there-
fore bears “the initial burden to prove that the challenged re-
straint has a substantial anticompetitive effect” in the relevant
market. NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69, 96 (2021) (quoting Ohio
v. American Express Co., 585 U.S. 529, 541 (2018)).1 If he suc-
ceeds, the burden shifts to the NCAA “to show a procompet-
itive rationale for the restraint.” Id. (quoting American Express
Co., 585 U.S. at 541). “If the defendant can make that showing,
‘the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the
procompetitive efficiencies could be reasonably achieved
through less anticompetitive means.’” Id. at 96–97 (quoting
American Express Co., 585 U.S. at 542).
1.
I cannot accept my colleagues’ heavy reliance on the ex-
clusive dealing cases—cases that arise in a very different eco-
nomic ambiance from the rather complex present situation. In
my view, the analogy to exclusive dealing arrangements does
not reflect with the requisite precision the economic
1 The rule of reason requires a more nuanced investigation. Indeed, it is
this requirement that distinguishes this analytical tool from per se and
quick look analyses. See Jefferson Par. Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2,
28–32 (1984) (finding an exclusive contract was not illegal per se under the
Sherman Act and remanding for further proceedings), abrogated on other
grounds by Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006); Nw.
Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pac. Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U.S. 284, 295–
97 (1985) (finding that the expulsion of a member of a cooperative buying
group was not a “group boycott” and should be analyzed under the rule
of reason, not as a per se violation); Maj. Op. at 13.

-- 21 of 30 --

22 No. 25-1187
arrangement before us. We are confronted, in essence, with a
competitive restriction on the labor market for football play-
ers in Division I of the NCAA. Therefore, the appropriate in-
quiry before us is whether the NCAA’s imposition of the Five-
Year Rule has an anticompetitive effect on the Division I foot-
ball labor market.
Mr. Fourqurean’s case is hardly the first time the judiciary
has been called upon to adjudicate the application of the pol-
icies embodied in the Nation’s antitrust laws to athletic labor
markets. For instance, in Radovich v. National Football League,
352 U.S. 445 (1957), the Supreme Court determined that a foot-
ball player’s antitrust claim challenging the legality of the
NFL’s blacklisting him from competing in affiliated leagues
was viable. See id. at 448, 453–54. We had occasion to interpret
Radovich in Nichols v. Spencer International Press, Inc., 371 F.2d
332 (7th Cir. 1967). We reasoned that Radovich’s claim was
viable because
the service supplied to the public by a profes-
sional football club was highly dependent upon
the ability of the players employed by the club,
and a black-listing agreement was, from the
point of view of the public, an impairment of
competition as to the quality of the service sup-
plied, even though, as between player and club
it is only a restriction on freedom to employ.
Id. at 336 (citation modified).
In Nichols, the plaintiff alleged that his former employer
entered into “no-switching” agreements with its rivals,
through which the competitors refused to hire each other’s
employees. Id. at 333. Nichols brought an antitrust action

-- 22 of 30 --

No. 25-1187 23
challenging the agreements and seeking “damages resulting
from loss of opportunity for employment.” Id. We held that
Nichols had stated a cognizable antitrust claim and reasoned
that even though
the antitrust laws were not enacted for the pur-
pose of preserving freedom in the labor market,
nor of regulating employment practices as such,
nevertheless it seems clear that agreements
among supposed competitors not to employ
each other’s employees not only restrict free-
dom to enter into employment relationships,
but may also, depending upon the circum-
stances, impair full and free competition in the
supply of a service or commodity to the public.
Id. at 335–37; see also Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp,
Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Ap-
plication ¶ 352c, p.320 (5th ed. 2021) (“Antitrust law addresses
employer conspiracies controlling employment terms pre-
cisely because they tamper with the employment market and
thereby impair the opportunities of those who sell their ser-
vices there.”).2
Accordingly, rather than considering whether a competi-
tor of the NCAA is kept from doing business,3 we must
2 I cite Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445 (1957), and Nichols
v. Spencer International Press, Inc., 371 F.2d 332 (7th Cir. 1967), only for the
proposition that labor markets properly may be the subject of scrutiny un-
der the antitrust laws of the United States.
3 This consideration was key in the exclusive dealing cases cited to support
the majority’s theory of anticompetitive conduct, United States v. Dentsply

-- 23 of 30 --

24 No. 25-1187
instead determine whether the NCAA rule excludes
Mr. Fourqurean and other similarly situated athletes from
competing in the labor market of NCAA Division I football
and whether that exclusion reduces competition in that mar-
ket. See Agnew v. NCAA, 683 F.3d 328, 346 (7th Cir. 2012)
(“[L]abor markets are cognizable under the Sherman Act.”);
see also Smith v. Pro Football, Inc., 593 F.2d 1173, 1185 (D.C. Cir.
1978) (recognizing the “player-service market” and finding
the NFL draft “undeniably anticompetitive”).4 By enacting
and enforcing its eligibility rules, the NCAA operates as an
organization of employers who are, in essence, forcing play-
ers out of the league in order to limit the labor market.
We need not spend a great deal of additional time on this
question. In Agnew v. NCAA, 683 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 2012), we
indicated that identifying the relevant market as the “labor
market for student-athletes … would meet plaintiffs’ burden
of describing a cognizable market.” Id. at 346. In his com-
plaint, Mr. Fourqurean alleges that “[t]he NCAA and its
member institutions control the highest and most popular
level of collegiate athletics.”5 Elsewhere he states that the
NCAA “possesses a dominant position in the relevant
International, Inc., 399 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2005), and Fashion Originators' Guild
of America v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457 (1941).
4 See also Banks v. NCAA, 977 F.2d 1081, 1095 (7th Cir. 1992) (Flaum, J.,
dissenting) (defining as the relevant market “the nationwide labor market
for college football players” and explaining that “NCAA member colleges
are the purchasers of labor in this market, and the players are the suppli-
ers”). We revisited Banks in Agnew v. NCAA, 683 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 2012),
and rejected the Banks majority’s view that “the market for scholarship
athletes cannot be considered a labor market.” Agnew, 683 F.3d at 346.
5 R.1 ¶ 8.

-- 24 of 30 --

No. 25-1187 25
market.”6 With these assertions, the NCAA was on notice that
the relevant market was Division I football. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2); cf. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)
(requiring plaintiffs to plead “only enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face” in order to survive
a motion to dismiss). And “[b]ecause market definition is a
deeply fact-intensive inquiry,” Todd v. Exxon Corp., 275 F.3d
191, 199–200 (2d Cir. 2001), I would hesitate to require a more
detailed showing from Mr. Fourqurean before he has had an
opportunity for discovery.
Within the relevant market of Division I football, the
NCAA cannot plausibly dispute that it possesses monopsony
power. Therefore, the remaining inquiry is whether the
NCAA’s Five-Year Rule has an anticompetitive effect within
that market. In my view, it plainly does.
The NCAA’s Five-Year Rule decreases competition in the
labor market by forcing out the market’s most experienced
athletes. In so doing, the NCAA depresses NIL compensation
by declaring ineligible the very players who would be entitled
to the most lucrative financial arrangements because they
have spent years developing their skills. Cf. Elad v. NCAA,
No. 25-1981, 2025 WL 1202014, at *8 (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2025) (un-
published) (explaining that another rule that restricts players’
eligibility “distorts the labor market by reducing competition,
depressing the prices at which Division I schools can acquire
athletes, and the pay athletes can earn in NIL agreements”).
As a result, I do not doubt that Mr. Fourqurean will be able to
demonstrate the anticompetitive effect of the Five-Year Rule.
The elimination of experienced players like Mr. Fourqurean
6 Id. ¶ 54.

-- 25 of 30 --

26 No. 25-1187
also lowers the level of competition in Division I, making it a
less desirable form of athletic entertainment, and makes it
more difficult for the participating schools and conferences to
put on such entertainment. Moreover, this restriction de-
presses the ancillary industries, such as television, which have
a symbiotic relationship with Division I athletics. This depres-
sion of competition will, in time, harm the compensation of
all Division I players.
2.
As a procompetitive justification for this constraint, the
NCAA submits that its Five-Year Rule preserves differentia-
tion between collegiate and professional football by linking
eligibility to an athlete’s academic progression. But other
NCAA bylaws undercut the current legitimacy of the
NCAA’s interest in keying athletic eligibility to degree pro-
gression and amateurism. Whatever the legitimacy of such an
argument in the past, the NCAA revised recently its bylaws
to allow athletes to transfer schools as many times as it ap-
pears economically advantageous to the individual player.
Permitting athletes to change schools with such frequency im-
peaches significantly the NCAA’s professed interest in aca-
demic progression within the Division I market. See Pavia v.
NCAA, 760 F. Supp. 3d 527, 543 (M.D. Tenn. 2024) (“The Court
finds it highly implausible that frequent transfers, even those
within NCAA institutions, benefit an athlete’s academic ca-
reer and promote ‘natural and standard degree progres-
sion.’”). Moreover, Division I teams now perform against the
backdrop of a lucrative NIL industry that, in its current state,
is significantly divorced from higher education. When
viewed in the context of an industry drastically changed by

-- 26 of 30 --

No. 25-1187 27
these lucrative compensation arrangements,7 the notion that
the NCAA protects its athletes’ amateur status appears disin-
genuous.
To support its proffered procompetitive justification, the
NCAA’s expert nevertheless maintained that without the
Five-Year Rule, athletes would be “older and less aligned
with standard collegiate progression.” R.20 at 8. But the Five-
Year Rule excepts years spent in military service, on religious
mission, or engaged in foreign assistance programs from the
years counted toward an athlete’s eligibility,8 seemingly ena-
bling other older athletes to compete at the collegiate level.
That some older athletes may compete, but not those like
Mr. Fourqurean, undermines the NCAA’s argument that it is
preserving the league’s youthful demographic. See Pavia, 760
F. Supp. 3d at 541–42; Elad, 2025 WL 1202014, at *9.9
Nor is the NCAA’s interest in permitting new athletes to
take the place of athletes who have exhausted their eligibility
a legitimate justification for the Five-Year Rule. The transfer
portal allows universities to select players who have already
gained experience and developed as athletes to fill vacant
spots on their rosters. This practice belies significantly the
professed concern with Division I filling its roster spots with
“new blood.” As now organized, the Division must focus on
7 See R.4-5 at 3 (explaining that the NIL market has grown “to an expected
$1.67 billion in 2024–25,” and that revenue sharing is expected to increase
athletes’ compensation even further).
8 See R.4-6 at 66 (NCAA Bylaw 12.8.1.2).
9 The district court was entitled to consider the factual assessments and
economic analyses of earlier decisions in making its decision on the pro-
priety of a preliminary injunction.

-- 27 of 30 --

28 No. 25-1187
a steady stream of highly competitive games that produce tel-
evision revenues, alumni donations, and support for a myriad
of related industries (including gambling interests). From the
point of view of its member institutions, the economic beat
must go on at a steady pace. The NCAA has failed to offer a
legitimate procompetitive justification for its Five-Year Rule,
as applied to Mr. Fourqurean.10
C.
Finally, I agree with the district court’s assessment that
Mr. Fourqurean would suffer irreparable harm without a pre-
liminary injunction. If Mr. Fourqurean is entitled to play the
2025–26 football season but he misses out on that season, that
loss cannot be compensated through monetary damages. See
E. St. Louis Laborers’ Loc. 100 v. Bellon Wrecking & Salvage Co.,
414 F.3d 700, 703 (7th Cir. 2005) (“An injury is irreparable for
purposes of granting preliminary injunctive relief only if it
cannot be remedied through a monetary award after trial.”);
Ohio v. NCAA, 706 F. Supp. 3d 583, 597 (N.D. W. Va. 2023)
(“Courts have repeatedly found that ‘[c]ollege students suffer
irreparable harm when they are denied the opportunity to
play sports.’” (alteration in original) (quoting S.A. v. Sioux
Falls Sch. Dist. 49-5, No. 23-CV-04139, 2023 WL 6794207, at *9
(D.S.D. Oct. 13, 2023))) (collecting cases).
Even disregarding the inherent value of athletics or the
opportunity to improve his future NFL opportunities,
Mr. Fourqurean would also lose compensation from NIL
10 Because I believe that the NCAA has offered no legitimate procompeti-
tive justification for its Five-Year Rule, I do not reach the question of
whether there are alternative means of achieving the stated procompeti-
tive justifications for the Five-Year Rule.

-- 28 of 30 --

No. 25-1187 29
opportunities. This is not a speculative injury, as it is virtually
certain to occur, and it would be very difficult to calculate. See
E. St. Louis Laborers’ Loc. 100, 414 F.3d at 705 (“A plaintiff may
suffer irreparable harm if the nature of the loss makes mone-
tary damages difficult to calculate.”). Not playing in the
NCAA’s 2025–26 football season, even if he could play a later
season of collegiate football, would cause immeasurable harm
to Mr. Fourqurean’s marketability for NIL deals and to his de-
velopment as a player.
The NCAA also contends that Mr. Fourqurean delayed in
bringing this action, indicating that the harm would not be
irreparable. See Ty, Inc. v. Jones Grp., Inc., 237 F.3d 891, 903 (7th
Cir. 2001) (explaining that delay is relevant in that it “may
raise questions” regarding irreparable harm). This argument
is without merit. Although the University of Wisconsin did
not request an exemption for Mr. Fourqurean until December
2024, Mr. Fourqurean moved with haste to bring this action
against the NCAA. His attorney contacted the NCAA multi-
ple times as it reviewed Mr. Fourqurean’s application, and he
filed a complaint and motion for a temporary restraining or-
der and injunction on the same day he received the NCAA’s
denial. The record does not reveal any delay that casts doubt
on Mr. Fourqurean’s harm being irreparable.
In sum, the district court did not err in finding that
Mr. Fourqurean would suffer irreparable harm without a pre-
liminary injunction.
Conclusion
Because I believe Mr. Fourqurean adequately alleges that
the NCAA engaged in anticompetitive conduct in regulating
Division I football, for which the NCAA has offered no

-- 29 of 30 --

30 No. 25-1187
legitimate procompetitive justifications, I would affirm the
district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction. I respect-
fully dissent.

-- 30 of 30 --