Boogie Trotter
HUNTINGTON – A federal judge has explained why he denied a request by 14 Marshall University and Ohio University athletes to play a fifth Division I season under the NCAA’s new eligibility framework, finding they had not shown they were likely to prevail on any of their claims.
U.S. District Judge Robert C. Chambers issued the 23-page memorandum opinion September 9, one week after denying the athletes’ request for a preliminary injunction at a September 2 hearing. The ruling leaves the athletes ineligible to compete during the 2026-27 academic year unless they obtain relief later in the case or on appeal.
The plaintiffs – 12 Marshall athletes and two Ohio University track and cross-country athletes – graduated from high school in 2022 and played four college seasons. They contend the NCAA unfairly excluded their cohort from a new “5-for-5” policy that permits later high school classes to compete in five seasons without using a traditional redshirt year.
Chambers
Chambers said the athletes failed to meet the demanding standard for the mandatory preliminary injunction they sought, which would have required the NCAA to alter the existing eligibility status quo.
“The court finds plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims,” Chambers wrote.
The athletes’ principal federal claim alleged that the NCAA’s decision to withhold a fifth season violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by restraining competition in sport-specific Division I labor markets.
Chambers agreed with the plaintiffs on one important point: NCAA eligibility restrictions can affect commerce because they limit athletes’ ability to participate in a labor market in which revenue-sharing and name, image and likeness compensation are available.
But the judge said the athletes did not offer enough factual evidence to define the sport-specific Division I labor markets they alleged – including markets for football, baseball, soccer, tennis, women’s basketball, softball and cross country.
The athletes relied in part on an expert declaration from sports economist David Berri that had been presented in a separate Colorado case, Wisne v. NCAA. Chambers said Berri’s work addressed Division I athletics as a whole, rather than the individual sport markets alleged in the Huntington case.
The evidence also did not answer key market-definition questions, Chambers wrote, such as whether Division I programs compete with professional teams for football players or whether Division II and Division III schools are reasonable substitutes from an athlete’s perspective.
“While the court acknowledges that sport-specific markets may have more or less data available, that does not excuse plaintiffs’ burden to present what data is available,” Chambers wrote.
The judge also found the plaintiffs had not established an actual marketwide anticompetitive effect, such as lower compensation, underemployment or reduced output.
The athletes alleged that their exclusion would reduce the number of eligible Division I athletes and reduce their NIL and revenue-sharing compensation to zero. But Chambers said they did not present marketwide evidence showing open roster spots would go unfilled, that the rule caused underemployment or that compensation had been depressed throughout any relevant sport-specific market.
Chambers noted the athletes already were ineligible under the former four-seasons-in-five-years structure. The NCAA’s revised policy, Chambers wrote, did not remove them from an existing pool of eligible athletes. It declined to add them retroactively under the new framework.
Chambers also found the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their West Virginia contract, consumer-protection, promissory-estoppel, NIL and tortious-interference claims.
Regarding the contract, the athletes argued they were third-party beneficiaries of the NCAA’s Division I Manual, which contains the association’s constitution and bylaws. Under West Virginia law, however, a third party may enforce a contract only when it was made for that party’s “sole benefit.”
The court found the NCAA manual benefits not only athletes, but also member schools, conferences, divisions and athletic personnel.
“Clearly, plaintiffs in this case are not the sole beneficiaries of NCAA’s constitution and bylaws,” Chambers wrote.
The judge also rejected the athletes’ claim under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The statute provides a private claim to people who purchase or lease goods or services, and Chambers said the athletes could not plausibly characterize NCAA eligibility rules as a sale of anything.
Chambers also said the athletes’ promissory-estoppel theory likewise did not show a likelihood of success. The NCAA did not promise the plaintiffs five seasons of competition, Chambers wrote; it provided the four seasons available under the rules applicable when they enrolled and competed.
Chambers rejected the NIL claims because the athletes did not lose eligibility for accepting NIL compensation. Instead, he wrote, they exhausted their four seasons under the rules that governed their college careers.
The ruling also disposed, for preliminary-injunction purposes, of the claim that the NCAA tortiously interfered with the athletes’ relationships with Marshall, Ohio University and other schools. Chambers found their athletic business relationships ended with the completion of their eligibility and said the NCAA’s decision not to make the new policy retroactive did not amount to intentional interference.
The federal lawsuit, filed August 24, expanded a July 6 state-court complaint brought by 12 Marshall athletes in Cabell County. The earlier suit alleged that the NCAA’s new eligibility rules improperly excluded athletes who graduated high school in 2022, even as COVID-era participants received extra seasons and certain former professional basketball players were permitted to return to NCAA competition.
New
Attorney Steve New previously told The West Virginia Record the NCAA should have adopted the rule prospectively with more time for athletes and schools to adjust.
Regarding Chambers’ decision, New declined comment. But he did say his legal team plans to obtain a sports economist and refile for an injunction.
The federal case added Ohio University athletes Allie Martin and Leila Bouseddra, a Sherman Act claim and claims under West Virginia and Ohio NIL laws. The plaintiffs include Marshall football players Dewain “Boogie” Trotter and Demarcus Lacey; baseball player Bryce Blevins; soccer players Bailey Fisher and Ryan Holmes; tennis players Johanna Strom and Ksenia Mamontova; women’s basketball players Peyton Ilderton, Meredith Maier and Blessing King; softball player Paige Simpson; and cross-country runner Hannah Wyler.
The athletes had asked Chambers to prohibit the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility limit against them and from penalizing the athletes, their schools or coaches under the association’s Rule of Restitution if they competed under a court order that was later reversed.
Before the memorandum opinion was issued, the NCAA argued that allowing retroactive eligibility would disrupt schools’ roster construction, playing-time decisions and revenue-sharing plans. “Roster spots, playing time, and revenue sharing payments are all fixed,” the NCAA told the court. “They are zero-sum.”
The case remains pending. Chambers’ decision resolves only the request for immediate preliminary relief, not the athletes’ underlying claims for permanent relief or damages.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number 3:26-cv-523
