DOJ under Trump's administration weighs in on Zeigler case challenging the NCAA's four-season rule
In a recent move, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has jumped into the ongoing legal battle between Tennessee basketball player Zakai Zeigler and the NCAA over the four-season rule. Zeigler, a college grad and two-time SEC defensive player of the year, issuing the rule in a federal court, and the DOJ has hinted that antitrust law should be used to analyze this situation.
The DOJ's statement, filed Tuesday in a Tennessee federal district court, doesn't take sides between Zeigler and the NCAA. However, it does present a convincing argument for considering antitrust law's rule of reason analysis when it comes to the NCAA's four-seasons rule.
In Zeigler's lawsuit, he wishes to play a fifth season as a graduate student to cash in on a potential $4 million in NIL deals. While the NCAA argues that antitrust law shouldn't apply to eligibility rules, the DOJ sees it differently. The DOJ contends that the Supreme Court case, NCAA v. Alston, establishes the application of the rule of reason to NCAA restrictions on college athletes, sensibly weighing anticompetitive effects and procompetitive benefits "in the labor market for student-athletes."
The rule of reason analysis requires a plaintiff to prove that a rule (such as the four-season cap) has a substantial anticompetitive effect on the athlete labor market. If that hurdle is cleared, the defendant (the NCAA) must prove a procompetitive rationale like eligibility rules integrating academics and athletics or distinguishing college sports from minor league sports. The plaintiff then gets a chance to demonstrate a less anticompetitive way of achieving the same procompetitive goals.
Zeigler proposes an exception to the four-season rule for players who complete their undergraduate degree in four years, in an attempt to preserve the existing eligibility system. However, the NCAA opposes the idea, arguing it could result in incoming freshmen losing roster spots as athletes who eye NIL deals try to extend their college careers as long as possible.
The DOJ's statement piecefully highlights factors that suggest the four-season rule complies with the rule of reason. It emphasizes the educational experience that college athletes gain from participating in intercollegiate athletics and maintaining academic connections, stating that factors like academic progress requirements enhance the quality of the experience for college athletes.
Though the Supreme Court case, NCAA v. Alston, was a loss for the NCAA, the DOJ stresses that the loss was narrowly defined, particularly in regards to rules concerning compensation for athletes' education-related expenses. Lower court judges were hesitant to attack the college sports system as a whole, and the DOJ suggests that the NCAA could argue that eligibility rules (like the four-season rule) not only can enhance consumer demand but also can maintain quality in the labor market by preserving a distinction between college and pro sports.
The DOJ mentions the uniqueness of the American intercollegiate athletics system, which stands apart from professional sports, making the consumer appeal of college sports a procompetitive reason in favor of eligibility rules.
Although the impact of the DOJ's statement on the case remains uncertain, as the presiding judge has discretion over its influence, this isn't the first time the DOJ has offered a statement in a sports litigation. Previously, the DOJ opposed a "Salary cap rule" in a pending House settlement, arguing that it constituted an artificial ceiling on the market and was problematic under antitrust law.
The difference lies in the fact that the DOJ's statement in the Zeigler v. NCAA case is made by a presidential administration that will remain in place until January 2029, unlike the statement offered during the waning days of President Biden's term in the House settlement case.
- The Department of Justice (DOJ) has suggested that the rule of reason analysis should be used to analyze the media rights and anticompetitive impacts of the NCAA's four-season rule, given the ongoing legal battle between Tennessee basketball player Zakai Zeigler and the NCAA.
- In the Zeigler v. NCAA case, the DOJ has presented arguments supporting the NCAA's four-season rule, contending that it promotes a unique consumer appeal in the American intercollegiate athletics system and enhances the quality of the educational experience for student-athletes, making it a procompetitive reason in favor of the rule.
