{"id":26792,"date":"2025-07-21T19:16:15","date_gmt":"2025-07-21T19:16:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/26792\/"},"modified":"2025-07-21T19:16:15","modified_gmt":"2025-07-21T19:16:15","slug":"nevada-wr-cortez-braham-jr-wins-court-injunction-to-play-in-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/26792\/","title":{"rendered":"Nevada WR Cortez Braham Jr. Wins Court Injunction to Play in 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\tIn the latest twist on whether college athletes whose NCAA eligibility has expired have a legal right to keep playing for NIL<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

\n\tU.S. District Judge Miranda M. Du\u2019s 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\u00a0reversed a ruling<\/a>\u00a0that 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,\u00a0wait for the Sixth Circuit to decide<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n\tAs\u00a0Sportico\u00a0detailed when\u00a0Braham sued in May<\/a>, 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 \u201conce-in-a-lifetime opportunity\u201d to play D-I football would not only negate lucrative NIL opportunities but would, as Du explained, \u201cimpair his prospects of playing professionally, deprive him of essential training and competition experiences, and adversely affect his personal well-being and mental health.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThrough 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\u2014including JUCO competition\u2014in any one sport within a five-year window, runs afoul of antitrust law. He insists the rule shouldn\u2019t apply to time spent at a junior college since such an educational institution is not governed by the NCAA and because the rule doesn\u2019t apply to athletes who do a post-graduate year after high school or partake in other activities including, Du writes, \u201cmilitary service, religious missions, professional careers in other sports, or independent athletic or academic work.\u201d 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?<\/p>\n

\n\tDu agreed with Braham that he is part of a labor market for D-I college football given \u201cit 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.\u201d She also reasoned that in the current college sports world where athletes can sign NIL deals and now share revenue pursuant to the\u00a0House\u00a0settlement, eligibility rules are \u201ccommercial\u201d in nature and thus subject to antitrust scrutiny when they restrain economic opportunities.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tThe judge also endorsed Braham\u2019s antitrust arguments, including that the five-year rule \u201cresults in commercial harm\u201d to JUCO players, who are \u201cexcluded from the various benefits\u201d conferred in D-I football. Those benefits include\u00a0\u201cmore exposure, potentially better competition and coaching, and financial advantages due to the NIL opportunities.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tLikewise, Du wasn\u2019t persuaded by the NCAA\u2019s assertion that the five-year rule preserves college athletics as a unique product that is distinguishable from pro sports. She stressed that justification \u201cruns counter to the NCAA\u2019s other exceptions to its five-year rule that allow for older students to join after prep school, military service and\/or religious obligations.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe judge also didn\u2019t buy the NCAA\u2019s assertion that exempting JUCO years from the five-year rule would enable athletes to \u201ccompete indefinitely\u201d at JUCO before transferring to a D-I school or that the rule \u201censures natural degree progression.\u201d Du kept stressing that exceptions under the five-year rule for other pursuits, such as a post-graduate year, \u201chighlights the unfairness of treating JUCO competition as analogous to D-I competition.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tFurther, Du found that even though much of Braham\u2019s 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\u2019t later remedy if a case goes to trial and wins. Of course, an estimated loss of $500,000\u00a0could\u00a0be remedied by money since it is a quantifiable figure.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tBut Du reasoned that \u201cregardless\u201d of whether NIL offers \u201cmay result in calculable monetary compensation,\u201d the more salient point (in her view) is that \u201cforgone opportunity to \u2018market\u2019 one\u2019s \u2018name\u2019 and \u2018likeness\u2019 and to \u2018showcase abilities to future employers\u2019 cannot be estimated or quantified.\u201d She also referenced how playing another season will impact Braham\u2019s NFL and pro football prospects and that \u201cconstitutes a unique harm\u201d that can\u2019t be fully compensated by money.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn another adverse take on an NCAA argument, Du found unconvincing the NCAA\u2019s point that Braham\u2014and by logical extension those similarly situated\u2014playing 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. \u201cThe NCAA,\u201d Du wrote, \u201cfailed to present any evidence of a fixed roster demonstrating proof of actual displacement.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe NCAA can appeal Du\u2019s order to the Ninth Circuit. Many of the NCAA\u2019s arguments have persuaded other judges reviewing similar cases, particularly since there might not be a \u201climiting principle\u201d to athletes suing to keep playing. After all, if an athlete\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn a statement shared with\u00a0Sportico, an NCAA spokesperson said the association \u201cstands by its eligibility rules\u201d as they \u201cenable student-athletes and schools to have fair competition and ensure broad access\u201d to opportunities to play college sports.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tThe spokesperson also alluded to the prospect of Congress intervening to grant the NCAA an exemption from antitrust scrutiny on eligibility matters.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cAs legal outcomes continue to differ from case to case,\u201d the spokesperson said, \u201cthe NCAA believes partnering with Congress is essential to provide clarity and stability for current and future student-athletes.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In the latest twist on whether college athletes whose NCAA eligibility has expired have a legal right to…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":26793,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[67],"tags":[2304,399,23317,398,396,23318,397,1606,99],"class_list":{"0":"post-26792","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-ncaa-football","8":"tag-federal-courts","9":"tag-football","10":"tag-house-v-ncaa","11":"tag-ncaa","12":"tag-ncaa-football","13":"tag-ncaa-legal-issues","14":"tag-ncaafootball","15":"tag-nil","16":"tag-sports"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26792","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26792"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26792\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26793"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}