NCAA Wins Again as Court Finds Georgia Outfielder Ineligible

Stressing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston (2021) was “more scalpel than ax,” a federal judge on Friday denied University of Georgia graduate student Dylan Goldstein’s motion for a preliminary injunction to play baseball beyond his four years of NCAA eligibility.

Goldstein’s case is similar to other antitrust lawsuits recently brought by college athletes who demand to keep playing. The 24-year-old outfielder began his college baseball career at Chipola College, a junior college in Florida. His first season in 2020 was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but he played for Chipola in 2021. Goldstein then transferred to D-I Florida Atlantic University, where played in 2022 and 2023. He then transferred to Georgia in time for the 2024 season.

More from Sportico.com

There is no disagreement that even with 2020 not counting, Goldstein’s NCAA eligibility ended in 2024. The NCAA limits an athlete’s participation in NCAA sports to five calendar years from when the athlete begins studying at a college and four seasons of intercollegiate competition in any one sport. The NCAA also counts an athlete’s participation at a junior college even though junior colleges aren’t NCAA members. While the NCAA granted a pandemic-related waiver in 2020 to allow athletes a sixth academic year to complete their D-I eligibility and gave athletes a chance to play five seasons (under certain conditions), a JUCO athlete’s D-I eligibility clock runs from their time at a junior college.

Goldstein is also not a beneficiary of a recent NCAA court defeat, after Vanderbilt quarterback and former junior college transfer Diego Pavia convinced a federal judge last December to grant a preliminary injunction to let him play D-I football in fall 2025, allowing former JUCO players to play a fourth year of D-I in fall 2025 or spring 2026. Goldstein wants to play this spring.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Tilman (“Tripp”) E. Self III, noted that while he was “sympathetic” to Goldstein’s desire to keep playing, the athlete’s legal arguments came up short. The judge underscored that a party seeking a preliminary injunction on the basis of antitrust law faces a steep burden. Goldstein had to show, among other things, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and a substantial threat of irreparable injury (meaning the kind of injury monetary damages can’t remedy).

“It’s akin to hitting for the cycle,” the judge—a UGA Law and Citadel graduate—wrote of obtaining a preliminary injunction. “Not impossible, but pretty darn rare.”

Self reasoned that because NCAA eligibility bylaws are “non-commercial,” those bylaws are not subject to antitrust scrutiny. Even if they were subject to such scrutiny, Goldstein in Self’s view had failed to establish the NCAA violated the law.

In discussing that point, the judge took time to clarify the NCAA’s loss in Alston. That case concerned a narrow set of NCAA rules that limited how colleges could compensate athletes for education-related expenses. Alston did not concern compensation for playing sports, NIL or eligibility. Self cited Ed O’Bannon’s antitrust victory in a case involving the use of players likenesses in video games to further distinguish what Goldstein seeks, an application of antitrust law to the number of years college athletes can play sports.

Although Goldstein maintained that possible NIL opportunities are linked to player eligibility, Self disagreed that such a link automatically creates an antitrust controversy. “It goes without saying,” the judge wrote, “that not every rule a commercial enterprise like the NCAA makes is ‘commercial’ in the antitrust sense.”

Self also pointed out that while Goldstein and his agent “swear” the player would land lucrative NIL deals, “the [written] record” as of a hearing held on Feb. 25 “did not have a single dollar amount on it with respect to Goldstein’s current or potential NIL compensation.”

The judge acknowledged that Goldstein’s attorney mentioned during the hearing “monthly NIL compensation in the amount of $3,000 and a term sheet for a potential $18,000 contract,” but “nothing further was presented to the Court.”

For the NCAA, Friday’s ruling is another antitrust win on a player eligibility matter before a federal court. In recent weeks, the NCAA has also defeated motions for injunctions brought by University of Tennessee first baseman Alberto Osuna and former Stonehill College baseball player Trey Ciulla-Hall, though in another case a judge prohibited the NCAA from enforcing its five-year rule on Wisconsin redshirt senior Nyzier Fourqurean.

The NCAA also landed wins last year, including in an NIL case brought by two former Overtime Elite players, twin 20-year-old brothers Matt and Ryan Bewley; a case brought by University of North Carolina tennis player Reese Brantmeier challenging NCAA prize money rules; and a case challenging the constitutionality of NCAA enforcement actions.

These wins are important for the NCAA preserving its control over intercollegiate athletics, especially as the highest levels of D-I become more akin to pro sports through the pending settlement of the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations.

Best of Sportico.com

Sign up for Sportico’s Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.