A national court’s decision last week to give an order to Vanderbilt quarterback and former young college move Diego Pavia to resonate through Division I sports took little time.
The NCAA D-I table on Monday granted a cancellation to similarly situated players to play, as Pavia sought, another year in 2025-26.
The NCAA was prohibited from enforcing bylaw 12.02.6 in the case of Pavia, according to Chief U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell. Pavia’s eligibility for the NCAA was at concern because she spent two years at junior college at New Mexico Military Institute, which was against Pavia’s four-season registration requirement. Campbell and Pavia agreed that the monopolistic law’s application of the rule to Pavia is problematic in a decision that described D-I soccer players as playing in a developed work business. Pavia would not have the opportunity for participant growth and NIL deals.

According to Sportico’s prediction on Sunday, the decision is likely to lead to additional antitrust complaints involving NCAA eligibility requirements. The Pavia decision can be used by other athletes to issue eligibility restrictions and to use advocacy materials from Pavia’s attorneys to support their legal arguments.
When Southern Mississippi baseball player and former JUCO school move John Wade III filed a complaint in a Mississippi Federal Court on Monday, the possibility of similar claims arose. Before distributing, he played Division II and JUCO hockey in California. Wade contends that joining forces to limit the ways in which member schools and the NCAA offer D-I athletes opportunities, including how much they can play their D-I activity while an entered student, is in violation of the Sherman Act.
Given that it is a nationwide organization, the NCAA is in a tough position because it values the equality of its members, their workers, and athletes. It would destroy equitable treatment if Pavia, but no similarly situated players, may play an additional season. Similar tactics were used by the NCAA in 2024 when another federal district judge in Tennessee forbade the NCAA from enforcing rules governing NIL collectives. The NCAA suspended the NCAA’s ability to enforce 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. Additionally, athletes must meet other eligibility requirements, such as academic achievement.

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 implications of Pavia’s case are significant because it could inspire efforts to challenge other eligibility guidelines and allow college athletes to play for a long time while still attending.