It didn’t take long for a federal judge’s decision last week to grant an injunction to Vanderbilt quarterback and former junior college transfer Diego Pavia to reverberate through Division I sports.
The NCAA D-I board on Monday granted a waiver to similarly situated players to play, as Pavia sought, another year in 2025-26.
Chief U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell enjoined the NCAA from enforcing bylaw 12.02.6 to preclude Pavia from playing D-I football next year. At issue was Pavia playing two years at junior college New Mexico Military Institute, which counted against Pavia’s NCAA eligibility clock (four seasons within five years). In a ruling that described D-I football players as playing in a commercialized labor market, with NIL, Campbell agreed with Pavia that application of the rule to Pavia is problematic under antitrust law. Pavia would be denied the chance for NIL deals and player development.
As Sportico predicted on Sunday, the ruling is likely to trigger additional antitrust lawsuits over NCAA eligibility rules. Other athletes can rely on the Pavia ruling as persuasive authority to challenge eligibility restrictions and use advocacy materials by Pavia’s attorneys to strengthen their legal arguments.
The prospect of similar lawsuits arose on Monday when Southern Mississippi basketball player and former JUCO college transfer John Wade III filed a Pavia-like lawsuit in a Mississippi Federal Court. He played JUCO and Division II basketball in California before transferring. Like Pavia, Wade argues the NCAA and member schools are in violation of the Sherman Act by joining hands to limit how they offer opportunities to D-I athletes, including as to how long they can remain eligible to play their D-I sport as an enrolled student.
The NCAA is also in a difficult position given that it is a national association that stresses the need to treat member institutions and their coaches, staff and athletes equally. It would undermine equal treatment if Pavia, but not similarly situated players, could play an extra season. The NCAA applied a similar approach earlier in 2024, when another federal district judge in Tennessee enjoined the NCAA from enforcing rules overseeing NIL collectives. The NCAA suspended enforcement of those rules.
As worded, the NCAA’s waiver only pertains to the 2025-2026 season. It applies to athletes across sports, too, so is not limited to football. The waiver also requires that athletes meet other eligibility requirements, including progress toward a degree.
The NCAA also intends to appeal Campbell’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As of this writing, no such appeal, or notice of an appeal, has been filed in court. The ramifications of Pavia’s case are profound in that it could lead to efforts to challenge other eligibility rules and make it possible for college athletes to play for long careers so long as they remain students.
