22-07-2025
Nevada WR Catches Court Win as NCAA Eligibility Cases Split
In the latest twist on whether college athletes whose NCAA eligibility has expired have a legal right to keep playing for NIL deals and preparation for pro sports, a federal judge in Nevada last Friday blocked the NCAA from rendering University of Nevada wide receiver Cortez Braham Jr. ineligible for what will be his seventh season in college sports.
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
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
College Athletes as Employees: Answering 25 Key Questions
