NCAA Junior-College Rule Gets Better Reaction in Second Case (1)

A panel of Third Circuit judges seemed receptive Wednesday to the NCAA’s defense of its junior-college eligibility rules, a day after judges in a different appeals court took the organization to task over the same rules.

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit grilled the attorney for a Rutgers defensive back suing the NCAA over those rules in a case that challenges the organization’s power over college sports.

Judge Stephanos Bibas questioned plaintiff Jett Elad’s market analysis and viability of his antitrust claims.

Bibas asked about the data needed to support an analysis of the market definition—a threshold issue in determining anticompetitive effects.

Bibas said there were no graphs, no data, and no analysis typical of expert reports. Elad’s attorneys defined the relevant market as the labor market for college football athletes in general and NCAA Division I football specifically.

“How do we know the boundaries of this market and the anticompetitive effects?” Bibas asked.

The question before the Third Circuit is whether a district court properly blocked the NCAA from declaring Elad ineligible to play football for Rutgers based on his one season of “juco” football.

The NCAA’s five-year rule permits student-athletes to compete in four seasons of competition within five years. Elad is arguing that the rule shouldn’t count his juco season toward the five-year limit.

Elad’s case is similar to one brought by Diego Pavia, a former juco player who is the starting quarterback at Vanderbilt. A Sixth Circuit panel raised skepticism Tuesday over the NCAA’s justifications for the rules in the Pavia case.

Monopsony?

Kevin H. Marino, attorney for Elad, said he didn’t have the more detailed analysis the panel sought. But he said the NCAA is clearly a monopsony—the only buyer in the market—and that name, image, and likeness payments are not evenly distributed among players.

Judge Thomas L. Ambro pressed Marino on alleged anticompetitive effects, also asking what evidence exists that the juco rule “drives down compensation” for D-I athletes.

Rakesh Kilaru, attorney for NCAA at Wilkinson Stekloff LLP, leaned into the judge’s concerns over the lack of detailed analysis on a relevant market.

“You don’t see any analysis of NIL data,” Kilaru said. “You need to see some sort of negative output on price.”

Judges Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves also heard the case.

The NCAA is also represented by Holland & Knight. Elad is represented by Marino Tortorella & Boyle PC.

The case is Elad v. NCAA, 3d Cir., No. 25-01870.