A national judge’s decision to injunct the Vanderbilt quarterback and former young school move Diego Pavia could lead to a number of legal challenges to the NCAA eligibility rules, which are centered on the evolving link between NIL and D-1 eligibility.
Athletes interested in a seven-year college career that includes their first two years in JUCO and subsequently their final five years in D-1 may be in the fray. Some players may sue to prolong their undergraduate occupations, with some utilizing graduate programs at universities well into their 20s or actually beyond. At the other end of the spectrum, younger people may challenge the NCAA’s first registration rules.
Because of the formalization of school sports and the eagerness of judges to review eligibility cases from decades before the NIL era, these possibilities are legal.

College sportsmen can then confidently contend that the neglect of playing registration and the associated NIL deals privile them of market-based opportunities that are typically protected by antitrust law. Because they reflect agreements between competing businesses ( i .e., NCAA member institutions ) to restrain opportunities for a labor market that increasingly resembles professional athletes, NCAA eligibility rules are susceptible to antitrust scrutiny.
The agency’s long-standing principle, raised by the NCAA in lawsuits against states that pass laws that conflict with NCAA regulations, requires that it treat associate institutions and their athletes likewise. This is a contributing factor to the association’s ongoing problems. According to the association’s rules, some people deserve equal treatment, and it would be reasonably contradictory for a national organization to prioritize some over others. The NCAA is currently forced to treat Pavia differently than other past JUCO players. That troubling combination might cause the NCAA to announce that other players who share the same eligibility criteria as Pavia you continue playing.
Next Thursday, Chief U. S. District Judge William L. Campbell enjoined the NCAA from enforcing bylaw 12.02.6 to prevent Pavia from playing D-1 sport in 2025. Dubbed the Intercollegiate Competition Rule, 12.02.06 determines “intercollegiate opposition” to contain time playing for a young college team. Even though junior colleges are not NCAA member institutions, their football programs’ quality of play and their players ‘ chances of winning in a division can often be indistinguishable from D-1. NCAA athletes can only enjoy four seasons of “intercollegiate contest” within five years, an agreement that, until Pavia won an order, barred the original two-year New Mexico Military Institute sun from continuing his D-1 job. The NCAA, which criticized Campbell’s purchase, may appeal the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in hope the administrative judge will abandon the lawsuit.

Campbell’s purchase is strongly limited but has far-reaching repercussions.
On one hand, the lawsuit pertains even to Pavia. Without a judge purchase or the NCAA dropping its protection, past JUCO players may reappear in the same year because Pavia secured one. Campbell, in reality, italicized for attention that his purchase is” as to Pavia” and not other people.
Additionally, Pavia established that he is capable of signing attractive NIL offers as the Southeastern Conference’s starting quarterback. Pavia estimated that he would make over$ 1 million in NIL compensation next year, and Campbell added that if he was denied the chance to play, Pavia would lose out on establishing his “personal brand.” A less-heralded D-1 person from a smaller plan might have had more trouble obtaining an injunction, though Campbell didn’t read this.
On the other hand, many of Cambell’s expressed justification for issuing an order was less about the merits of Pavia’s NIL opportunities and more about a contemporary college sports scenery that is extremely reminiscent of professional sports.
Campbell’s reported logic points out that competitive scrutiny of eligibility bylaws really consider how college athletes today engage in sponsorship, influence, and various commercial transactions as part of their undergraduate experience. He even went so far as to refer to D-1 soccer players as a “labor business,” which implies that D-1 sports players offer soccer services in a developed manner equivalent to NFL players.
Also important: Campbell found irreparable harm ( meaning a harm that can’t be cured by monetary damages ) mainly because” as many other” courts have found,” the denial of the ability to play sports is irreparable harm”. A player’s development may be hampered by the lack of the chance to play, as well as their ability to obtain NIL deals. While not part of Campbell’s order, the NCAA’s settlement to resolve the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations strengthens Campbell’s reasoning. Participating colleges will receive a revenue share based on media rights, ticket sales sponsorships, and NIL if the settlement is granted final approval. That will strengthen the claim that D-1 athletes could suffer if denied the chance to play because of eligibility requirements.

Although Campbell’s injunction only serves Pavia in the first instance, it also serves other athletes who want to challenge NCAA eligibility guidelines.
Consider the eligibility deadline for other former JUCO athletes. They now have the tools to persuade a judge to give them more time. Those athletes could hire attorneys to apply the legal arguments drafted by Pavia’s attorneys, Ryan Downton and Salvador M. Hernandez.. They can also cite Campbell’s detailed logic. Another judge wouldn’t be bound by Campbell’s order but would certainly consider it relevant authority.
On X, Tom Mars, a longtime sports attorney and former member of the NCAA’s complex case unit, observed there is now a “roadmap” for other former JUCO players to bring Pavia-inspired cases.
” Player’s lawyer ( paid by school as permitted in eligibility cases per NCAA rule ) use Pavia pleadings as template with adjustments citing Pavia ruling,” Mars wrote. After receiving Mars ‘ phone number, Mars added that another former JUCO football player reached out to him after receiving Mars’. Additionally, other attorneys who have represented athletes, such as Darren Heitner and Gene Egdorf, mention athletes reaching out to them in response to the Pavia decision.
With a client list that has included Jim Harbaugh, Justin Fields, Houston Nutt, Bret Bielema and John Brannen, Mars predicts that” after 3-4 consecutive losses, the NCAA surrenders”, meaning announcing that it no longer intends to enforce the bylaw.
The NCAA has already” surrendered” this year in another NIL-related federal antitrust case in Tennessee. U.S. District Judge Clifton Corker joined the NCAA in February to outlaw college athletes and recruits from bargaining terms with NIL members and supporters. The NCAA then suspended the NCAA’s control over those rules. In response to setbacks in court, the NCAA also dropped its transfer rule. Even the NCAA’s NIL allowance reflects a sort of surrender. Before they became effective on July 1, 2021, the NCAA had the opportunity to challenge state NIL statutes, but instead decided not to do so and instead announced that it would no longer deny player eligibility as a result of their signing an NIL agreement.

Not just former JUCO players like Pavia could legally challenge NCAA eligibility guidelines.
Campbell’s argument that the commercialization of college sports and the denial of NIL opportunities make eligibility rules more legally suspect could lead to a number of legal issues. For instance, why can’t players continue their careers for years as graduate students? Numerous universities offer comprehensive and varied graduate programs. Given the looming “enrollment cliff,” where the college-age population is projected to decline over the next ten years, which will result in lower undergraduate enrollments and revenues, those universities are likely eager to enroll graduate students.
It’s not as if the NCAA is instantly hostile to older athletes, either. Chris Weinke, who was previously a pro baseball player, won the Heisman Trophy in 2000 as a 28-year-old QB. J. R. Smith, who was previously an NBA player, became a golfer at North Carolina A&amp, T in 2021 when he was 35 years old. Other “older” college athletes have included those whose military or missionary work precludes their academic progress. Even with the fact that less than 2 % of college athletes will turn pro, they should arguably not lose out on NIL opportunities.
Age-based eligibility rules when not collectively bargained are problematic under antitrust law because they restrain competition for a labor market for non-merit-based reasons, before you consider the solution is an age ceiling on college sports. And since college athletes, save for Dartmouth College men’s basketball players, are not unionized, the NCAA can’t collectively bargain an age ceiling.
In addition, there is the possibility of athletes being denied NCAA eligibility because of the NCAA Eligibility Center’s ( previously known as the NCAA Clearinghouse ) challenging the NCAA’s tough rules regarding lost NIL opportunities and the suspension of play in a commercialized college sports landscape. Kevin McNamee, a former George Mason Deputy AD, made a great suggestion to me on X. An attorney could adapt Pavia’s arguments to fit a challenge to initial eligibility rules, which include assorted academic requirements.

With Christmas only a few days away, it’s possible Santa Claus will have arrived early and issued an injunction to athletes who want to continue playing college sports and make NIL money.