A federal judge has refused to grant an injunction allowing two brothers to play basketball for Chicago State University before resolution of their lawsuit accusing the NCAA of improperly rejecting their amateur status.
Matthew and Ryan Bewley sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association in federal court in Chicago, accusing it of violating the Illinois Student-Athlete Endorsement Rights Act when it ruled them ineligible to play in college after playing high school ball under scholarship at Overtime Elite Academy in Georgia. According to the complaint, the NCAA deemed the academy constituted a professional team, while the brothers assert their contractual relationship is similar to other athletes who enter “name, image and likeness” contracts, or NIL deals, to be paid for endorsements without forfeiting amateur status.
As part of their lawsuit, the Bewleys filed a Nov. 1 motion seeking a temporary restraining order and a court order preventing the NCAA from enforcing its determination of ineligibility. Judge Robert Gettleman denied the restraining order request later that month. On Dec. 11 they moved for reconsideration of that denial; in an order filed Jan. 10 Gettleman denied the reconsideration motion and the injunction request.
Regarding the reconsideration, Gettleman said the brothers “have not pointed to any change in the facts, or to the court’s misunderstanding of any legal or factual argument in denying” the initial request. He noted the Bewleys argued their cases is similar to Ohio v. NCAA, a December 2023 decision from the Northern District of West Virginia, but wrote that opinion is not binding and “readily distinguishable” from their allegations.
In rejecting the injunction, Gettleman wrote the Bewleys “failed to establish that that they are likely to succeed in showing that they were denied eligibility based on compensation from OTE for use of their NIL.”
He noted the NCAA’s position in the Nov. 14 hearing on the restraining order, with which he agreed at the time, that the brothers’ deals with OTE were “so clearly an employment contract with a professional league,” far exceeding the terms of a typical NIL agreement, including those for athletes who also played for OTE teams after the NCAA adopted its NIL guidelines following the 2021 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, NCAA v. Alston.
The NCAA argued Overtime Elite changed its professional model in the fall of 2022 to offer “scholarships” instead of a “salary,” in order to help players preserve college eligibility, but said the academy paid the Bewleys “above actual and necessary expenses,” including performance bonuses, group licensing payments and apparel royalties.
“It is a separate question whether plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on their claims under federal antitrust law for unreasonable restraint of trade and unlawful group boycott,” Gettleman wrote. “Plaintiffs acknowledged during this court’s Nov. 14 hearing that they sought a TRO based only on their state law claim, but their motion for a preliminary injunction includes their federal claims. In any case, the court agrees with defendant that plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on their antitrust claims, which they assert without conducting discovery or presenting any evidence.”
Gettleman further said reliance on other litigation involving allegedly anticompetitive restrictions, including transfer limitations, is distinct because the plaintiffs were current or former college athletes challenging terms of their scholarships, not contesting their amateur status.
The Bewleys are represented by Daniel McGrath of Hinshaw & Culberston, of Chicago.
McGrath did not respond to requests for comment from The Cook County Record.