A federal judge on Wednesday upheld the NCAA’s request to declare Diego Pavia, a former young college transfer, and Vanderbilt quarterback, unsuitable to compete second season in a decision with considerable implications for NCAA gymnast eligibility and NIL opportunities.
The NCAA’s regulations governing who can enjoy, Chief U. S. District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. reasoned, are very limiting in a novel era where people can make NIL money. The judge made reference to contemporary university athletes signing support, sponsorship, influence, and other NIL agreements, and how NCAA regulations regarding” who may enter the labor market for NCAA Division I soccer” are directly related to performer opportunities for” business transactions.”

Campbell’s speech captured an extremely common stance in a “post-Alston universe” that the NCAA and its member organizations are like other companies. When they conspire to restrain competition, their rules are judged like those adopted by other businesses, with courts applying ordinary ( no longer deferential ) antitrust scrutiny.
Given that the rules were apparently meant to promote education opportunities and maintain college sports distinct from professional sports, judges have been scrutinizing NCAA rules with deference for decades. That world seems to be a remote history.
College players can then exchange colleges several times to secure more cash and playing day and sign attractive NIL deals, enjoy hiring from collectives and boosters who dangle what resemble pay-to-play offers, and negotiate attractive NIL deals. It has become more difficult for the NCAA to convincingly argue to judges that college sports is meaningfully different from professional sports, where a career is not limited, as Campbell’s order so convincingly demonstrates.
Pavia—who played at New Mexico Military Institute, a junior college, from 2020 to 2021—sued the NCAA last month and sought a preliminary injunction. He contends that the NCAA and its member institutions, which are competing businesses, violate antitrust laws by restraining college athlete eligibility in unjustifiable ways. He claims that losing a year of D-1 football will result in NIL opportunities and the development of football skills.
The injunction is in conflict with NCAA Bylaw 12.02.6, also known as the intercollegiate competition rule. Despite the fact that junior colleges aren’t NCAA members and JUCO football lacks the quality of play and NIL opportunities found in D-1 NCAA college football, the NCAA interprets the rule to include JUCO play. The NCAA acknowledged in court filings that neither rule will prevent Pavia from playing football in the 2025-26 season, but Pavia’s complaint also raised issues with the Five-Year Rule (NCAA Bylaw 12.8 ) and the Three-Year Transfer Limitation (NCAA Bylaw 14.3.3 ).

Campbell’s order bluntly rejected several of the NCAA’s legal arguments. The NCAA cited cases from the 2000s where courts upheld NCAA eligibility requirements on the grounds that they were “non-commercial in nature.” Campbell wasn’t persuaded, noting” those decisions were grounded in a pre-NIL world”. In contrast, in an NIL world, college athletes are unambiguously engaged in commercial transactions with the NCAA’s consent, according to Helsing.
Campbell also reasoned that, based on a review of Pavia’s evidence, it appears the” challenged eligibility rules harm competition”. The judge noted that former JUCO players had fewer opportunities to work in the NCAA D-1 labor market than those who only attended D-1 colleges. That means former JUCO players lose out on” competitive advantages and NIL compensation,” especially since D-1 offers” significant advantages over junior college football.” Campbell highlighted “more exposure, potentially better competition and coaching, and financial advantages due to the NIL opportunities disproportionately offered to Division I athletes” as key advantages.
Campbell also found it troubling that former JUCO players were treated differently than other student organizations whose athletic competition doesn’t count against their NCAA clock. He mentioned that the NCAA “does not start the eligibility clock for prep school student-athletes even though those students can earn credit toward a degree.” He added that while former JUCO players may be a little older ( Pavia is 23 ), it shouldn’t matter because there are other D-1 players who are older due to “military service, religious obligations, professional careers in other sports, or even independent athletic or academic work.”
The NCAA’s eligibility criteria also skepticism the judge, who claimed the NCAA sought a “natural and standard degree progression” through its eligibility criteria. That objective, Campbell wrote, “appears pretextual” since NCAA rules” concerning the duration of eligibility have evolved over time”. He mentioned how college athletes were only eligible for three seasons of varsity football before college athletes were no longer able to play for the team, and red shirt regulations have been relaxed as well for football players.

The NCAA is also prohibited from applying its restitution rule, which prohibits the NCAA from punishing a school that employs a player who, after winning an injunction in court, ultimately loses in court and becomes ineligible. In other words, no school would suffer a result from enrolling in Pavia, even if the NCAA ultimately prevails in the dispute.
Monday’s ruling can be relied on by similarly situated players at other D-1 schools. The ruling is a victory for Pavia’s attorneys, Ryan Downton and Salvador M. Hernandez, who took on the multibillion-dollar NCAA and won—at least this round. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has the authority to file an appeal against the NCAA.