Nevada WR Catches Court Win as NCAA Eligibility Cases Split
U.S. District Judge Miranda M. Du's ruling, which the NCAA can appeal to the U.S. Court for the Ninth Circuit, sets the table for a potential circuit split that attracts the interest of the U.S. Supreme Court. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a ruling that would have allowed Wisconsin cornerback Nyzier Fourqurean to play a fifth season of college football in five years. Meanwhile, the NCAA and Vanderbilt quarterback and former JUCO transfer Diego Pavia, who last December received a court ruling to play another season this fall, wait for the Sixth Circuit to decide.
More from Sportico.com
Offsides: The Two House Dems Who Make GOP's SCORE Act 'Bipartisan'
NCAA Defeats Terrelle Pryor's Lawsuit Over Lost NIL Opportunities
Every Division I School's Revenue-Sharing Decision for 2025-26
As Sportico detailed when Braham sued in May, he played three seasons of JUCO football and then three seasons in D-I, including in 2024 when he started all 13 games for the Wolf Pack and was second in the team in receptions and receiving yards. Braham seeks to play another season so that he can sign NIL deals worth about $500,000 and develop his football skills in preparation for the NFL. He alleges that the loss of a 'once-in-a-lifetime opportunity' to play D-I football would not only negate lucrative NIL opportunities but would, as Du explained, 'impair his prospects of playing professionally, deprive him of essential training and competition experiences, and adversely affect his personal well-being and mental health.'
Through attorneys Brandon D. Wright and Gregg E. Clifton of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Braham argues the five-year rule, which limits athletes to four seasons of intercollegiate competition—including JUCO competition—in any one sport within a five-year window, runs afoul of antitrust law. He insists the rule shouldn't apply to time spent at a junior college since such an educational institution is not governed by the NCAA and because the rule doesn't apply to athletes who do a post-graduate year after high school or partake in other activities including, Du writes, 'military service, religious missions, professional careers in other sports, or independent athletic or academic work.' The basic logic: Why should going to a junior college count against the clock, but a post-graduate year, military service, religious mission or a pro career in another sport not count?
Du agreed with Braham that he is part of a labor market for D-I college football given 'it is the sole pathway to NFL opportunities, and participation provides unique benefits, including NIL compensation, which are not available elsewhere, including at the JUCO level.' She also reasoned that in the current college sports world where athletes can sign NIL deals and now share revenue pursuant to the House settlement, eligibility rules are 'commercial' in nature and thus subject to antitrust scrutiny when they restrain economic opportunities.
The judge also endorsed Braham's antitrust arguments, including that the five-year rule 'results in commercial harm' to JUCO players, who are 'excluded from the various benefits' conferred in D-I football. Those benefits include 'more exposure, potentially better competition and coaching, and financial advantages due to the NIL opportunities.'
Likewise, Du wasn't persuaded by the NCAA's assertion that the five-year rule preserves college athletics as a unique product that is distinguishable from pro sports. She stressed that justification 'runs counter to the NCAA's other exceptions to its five-year rule that allow for older students to join after prep school, military service and/or religious obligations.'
The judge also didn't buy the NCAA's assertion that exempting JUCO years from the five-year rule would enable athletes to 'compete indefinitely' at JUCO before transferring to a D-I school or that the rule 'ensures natural degree progression.' Du kept stressing that exceptions under the five-year rule for other pursuits, such as a post-graduate year, 'highlights the unfairness of treating JUCO competition as analogous to D-I competition.'
Further, Du found that even though much of Braham's desire to keep playing is to land what he says are about $500,000 in NIL deals, the receiver would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction. In law, irreparable harm generally means the kind of harm that money damages can't later remedy if a case goes to trial and wins. Of course, an estimated loss of $500,000 could be remedied by money since it is a quantifiable figure.
But Du reasoned that 'regardless' of whether NIL offers 'may result in calculable monetary compensation,' the more salient point (in her view) is that 'forgone opportunity to 'market' one's 'name' and 'likeness' and to 'showcase abilities to future employers' cannot be estimated or quantified.' She also referenced how playing another season will impact Braham's NFL and pro football prospects and that 'constitutes a unique harm' that can't be fully compensated by money.
In another adverse take on an NCAA argument, Du found unconvincing the NCAA's point that Braham—and by logical extension those similarly situated—playing another year would displace other athletes. One displaced athlete is the player whose scholarship and spot on the Wolf Pack football roster this fall is predicated on Braham not being on the roster. 'The NCAA,' Du wrote, 'failed to present any evidence of a fixed roster demonstrating proof of actual displacement.'
The NCAA can appeal Du's order to the Ninth Circuit. Many of the NCAA's arguments have persuaded other judges reviewing similar cases, particularly since there might not be a 'limiting principle' to athletes suing to keep playing. After all, if an athlete's forgone NIL opportunities and development of skills in preparation for a career in the NFL (or NBA, WNBA, etc.) are justifications under antitrust law to keep playing, athletes might sue to remain in college sports for several years, including while enrolled at a university as a grad student. The prospect of a split among federal circuits on whether the five-year rule complies with, or violates, antitrust law could attract the interest of the U.S. Supreme Court, since athletes (and universities) in different parts of the country would essentially have different rights.
In a statement shared with Sportico, an NCAA spokesperson said the association 'stands by its eligibility rules' as they 'enable student-athletes and schools to have fair competition and ensure broad access' to opportunities to play college sports.
The spokesperson also alluded to the prospect of Congress intervening to grant the NCAA an exemption from antitrust scrutiny on eligibility matters.
'As legal outcomes continue to differ from case to case,' the spokesperson said, 'the NCAA believes partnering with Congress is essential to provide clarity and stability for current and future student-athletes.'
Best of Sportico.com
College Athletes as Employees: Answering 25 Key Questions
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump signs order to clarify college athletes' employment status amid NIL chaos
President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order mandating that federal authorities clarify whether college athletes can be considered employees of the schools they play for in an attempt to create clearer national standards in the NCAA's name, image and likeness era. Trump directed the secretary of labor and the National Labor Relations Board to clarify the status of collegiate athletes through guidance or rules 'that will maximize the educational benefits and opportunities provided by higher education institutions through athletics.' The order does not provide or suggest specifics on the controversial topic of college athlete employment. 6 President Donald Trump holds an executive order related to AI after signing it during the 'Winning the AI Race' Summit on July 23, 2025. REUTERS The move comes after months of speculation about whether Trump will establish a college sports commission to tackle some of the thorny issues facing what is now a multibillion-dollar industry. He instead issued an order intended to add some controls to 'an out-of-control, rudderless system in which competing university donors engage in bidding wars for the best players, who can change teams each season.' 'Absent guardrails to stop the madness and ensure a reasonable, balanced use of resources across collegiate athletic programs that preserves their educational and developmental benefits, many college sports will soon cease to exist,' Trump's order says. 'It is common sense that college sports are not, and should not be, professional sports, and my administration will take action accordingly.' There has been a dramatic increase in money flowing into and around college athletics and a sense of chaos. Key court victories won by athletes angry that they were barred for decades from earning income based on their celebrity and from sharing in the billions of revenue they helped generate have gutted the amateurism model long at the heart of college sports. Facing a growing number of state laws undercutting its authority, the NCAA in July 2021 cleared the way for athletes to cash in with NIL deals with brands and sponsors — deals now worth millions. 6 A NCAA logo flag at the NCAA Track and Field Championships at Hayward Field. Kirby Lee-Imagn Images That came mere days after a 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court that found the NCAA cannot impose caps on education-related benefits schools provide to their athletes because such limits violate antitrust law. The NCAA's embrace of NIL deals set the stage for another massive change that took effect July 1: The ability of schools to begin paying millions of dollars to their own athletes, up to $20.5 million per school over the next year. The $2.8 billion House settlement shifts even more power to athletes, who have also won the ability to transfer from school to school without waiting to play. 6 The College Football Playoff National Championship Trophy on display before the Ohio State National Championship celebration at Ohio Stadium on Jan. 26, 2025. AP At Big Ten Conference football media days in Las Vegas, Purdue coach Barry Odom was asked about the Trump order. 'We've gotten to the point where government is involved. Obviously, there's belief it needs to be involved,' he said. 'We'll get it all worked out. The game's been around for a hundred years and it's going to be around 100 more.' The NCAA has been lobbying for several years for limited antitrust protection to keep some kind of control over this new landscape — and avoid more crippling lawsuits — but a handful of bills have gone nowhere in Congress. 6 NCAA President Charlie Baker speaks during the organizations Division I Business Session at their annual convention on Jan. 15, 2025, in Nashville, Tenn. AP Trump's order makes no mention of that, nor does it refer to any of the current bills in Congress aimed at addressing issues in college sports. NCAA President Charlie Baker and the nation's largest conferences both issued statements saying there is a clear need for federal legislation. 'The association appreciates the Trump administration's focus on the life-changing opportunities college sports provides millions of young people and we look forward to working with student-athletes, a bipartisan coalition in Congress and the Trump administration,' said Baker, while the conferences said it was important to pass a law with national standards for athletes' NIL rights as soon as possible. 6 President Donald Trump speaks to reporters as Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., listens during a visit to the Federal Reserve, Thursday, July 24, 2025, in Washington. AP The 1,100 universities that comprise the NCAA have insisted for decades that athletes are students who cannot be considered anything like a school employee. Still, some coaches have recently suggested collective bargaining as a potential solution to the chaos they see. It is a complicated topic: Universities would become responsible for paying wages, benefits, and workers' compensation and schools and conferences have insisted they will fight any such move in court. 6 AP While private institutions fall under the National Labor Relations Board, public universities must follow labor laws that vary from state to state and it's worth noting that virtually every state in the South has 'right to work' laws that present challenges for unions. Trump's order also: — Calls for adding or at least preserving athletic scholarships and roster spots for non-revenue sports, which are those outside football and basketball. The House settlement allows for unlimited scholarships but does impose roster limits, leading to a complicated set of decisions for each program at each school that include potential concerns about Title IX equity rules. Trump said 'opportunities for scholarships and collegiate athletic competition in women's and non-revenue sports must be preserved and, where possible, expanded.'

Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fleet Bring Back Top Remaining Free Agent Loren Gabel
Loren Gabel was the top remaining free agent on the PWHL market, is heading back to the Boston Fleet after signing a one-year extension this week. Gabel was the 22nd overall pick in the inaugural 2023 PWHL Draft. She entered as the reigning PHF Most Valuable Player and Newcomer of the Year after starring for the Boston Pride. "Loren is one of the most skilled players in our group and has the ability to make an impact in ways few can,' said Fleet General Manager Danielle Marmer. 'We believe there's still more to unlock in her game and we're really looking forward to seeing what she can bring in season three.' Gabel won two national titles at Clarkson in the NCAA and was the 2019 Patty Kazmaier Award winner as the top player in NCAA women's hockey. The 28-year-old Kitchener product is excited to be heading back to Boston. 'I am incredibly honored and excited to be back in Boston for another year,' said Gabel. 'The support from our fans and the city the last two years has been amazing and I can't wait to continue to build on the foundation we have created here in Boston. There is so much to look forward to and I am ready to give it everything I've got for this team and this city. Go Fleet!' Gabel was one of only a handful of remaining PWHL veterans on the free agency market. Boston lost significant offense this offseason in the expansion process, and will look for Gabel to fulfill her potential in the league.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump can't save Olympic sports through EO, but could do this