They sent it back for further litigation on a technicality, ie the relevant market was not defined which is required in antitrust cases. So, the player (and others in similar cases) could still win eligibility if they can prove the 4 year rule is an unreasonable restraint of trade.
Is it? If a student were granted 5,6,7 years of eligibility - as long as an enrolled student - does that harm the college football product? Applying the PE common sense rule I’d say no….but I’m open to arguments otherwise. If proven veterans had access to ongoing “employment” and NIL the costs would definitely rise even higher as their services get bid up versus bringing on unproven high school kids with less or zero compensation leverage that are just happy to be there and get a shot.
If, say, using an entirely made up and ludicrous example if Sanford Health conspired with other upper Midwest health systems to kick out, not rehire senior physicians or nurses after ten years employment in favor of new grads at half the compensation would that pass muster?