Antitrust – Year In Residence Rule

By: Derek Hawkins//July 16, 2018//

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Peter Deppe v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

Case No.: 17-1711

Officials: BAUER, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Antitrust – Year In Residence Rule

This case raises an antitrust challenge to the NCAA’s “year in residence” rule, which requires student-athletes who transfer to a Division I college to wait one full academic year before they can play for their new school. A Division I football player filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that the rule is an unlawful restraint of trade in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. The district court dismissed the suit on the pleadings.

We affirm. The year-in-residence requirement is an eligibility rule clearly meant to preserve the amateur character of college athletics and is therefore presumptively procompetitive under NCAA v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), and Agnew v. NCAA, 683 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 2012).

Affirmed

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event