10th Circuit Reverses NCAA Eligibility Injunction

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit sided with the NCAA on Friday, reversing a nationwide injunction that would have allowed Division I athletes who completed four years of eligibility to play an additional season.

The three-judge panel included Circuit Judges Carolyn B. McHugh, Paul J. Kelly and Nancy L. Moritz. Judge McHugh authored the opinion in Wisne v. NCAA.

Central to the ruling was the court's definition of the "relevant labor market" in antitrust analysis. The court determined this market cannot encompass all of Division I athletics but must instead consider which specific athletic programs genuinely compete for an athlete's services.

McHugh wrote that the players' position—defining the relevant labor market as all of Division I athletics—"is simply not plausible." This rejected the athletes' foundational antitrust argument.

Defining the relevant market is the first step in antitrust analysis, used to identify the specific arena where competition is allegedly restrained. For college sports, courts must determine which entities compete to secure athlete services before assessing whether NCAA rules unlawfully restrict competition.

McHugh illustrated the reasoning with examples. A football player seeking a Division I roster spot would not consider the 101 schools without a football program as reasonable substitutes. Similarly, a women's volleyball player would not view a women's lacrosse team as a viable earning opportunity, since a lacrosse team does not represent a reasonably good substitute for volleyball services.

This reasoning applies to evaluating whether NCAA eligibility rules are overly anti-competitive. "Division I" is too broad a term when considering how schools compete for athletes.

Since market definition is the first step of antitrust analysis, the court did not need to address the remaining aspects of the case.

McHugh's opinion found that U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney clearly erred in accepting the players' proposed market definition. The reversal highlights a significant disagreement on this core legal principle.

The ruling suggests athletes challenging NCAA eligibility rules under antitrust law may need a more specific legal strategy, potentially involving plaintiffs from the same sport and conference.

The three-judge panel included Circuit Judges Carolyn B. McHugh, Paul J. Kelly and Nancy L. Moritz. Judge McHugh authored the opinion in Wisne v. NCAA.

McHugh wrote that the players' position—defining the relevant labor market as all of Division I athletics—"is simply not plausible." This rejected the athletes' foundational antitrust argument.

This reasoning applies to evaluating whether NCAA eligibility rules are overly anti-competitive. "Division I" is too broad a term when considering how schools compete for athletes.

Since market definition is the first step of antitrust analysis, the court did not need to address the remaining aspects of the case.

The ruling suggests athletes challenging NCAA eligibility rules under antitrust law may need a more specific legal strategy, potentially involving plaintiffs from the same sport and conference.