Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia sued the NCAA on Friday in a Tennessee federal district court on the grounds that NCAA rules prohibit his eligibility for the 2025-26 season because of his previous play at a junior college violate the Sherman Act, the latest sign that a multibillion-dollar settlement to resolve the House, Carter, and Hubbard antitrust litigations wo n’t insulate the NCAA from more antitrust lawsuits until perhaps all of amateurism is vanquished.
Pavia joined Vanderbilt this year after playing at New Mexico State from 2022 to 2023 and New Mexico Military Institute, a young school, from 2020 to 2021. Pavia’s clock to play NCAA sports is set to run out because of the combined effect of three NCAA bylaws: 12.8 ( the Five-Year Rule ), 12.02.6 ( the Intercollegiate Competition Rule ) and 14.3.3 ( the Three-Year Limitation ). An NCAA swimmer may compete in four months of collegiate competition within a five-year windows under the Five-Year Rule. Even though young schools are not NCAA members, the NCAA interprets “intercollegiate competition,” which is unaffiliated and offers little in the way of media coverage and NIL opportunities. Individually, the NCAA limits young college transfers to a maximum of three years.

The NCAA should n’t, in the end, determine Pavia’s eligibility to play at an NCAA member school based on his or her participation in JUCO. By doing so, Pavia contends, the NCAA harms his prospects for NIL offers and professional aspirations. Pavia also points out, as the U. S. Supreme Court has recognized, the NCAA has a stranglehold on big-time college athletics. A court order may prevent the NCAA from enforcing the challenged rules and prevent the NCAA from applying its compensation law, which allows the NCAA to condemn a school for using a player who, after winning an injunction in court, unfortunately loses in court and becomes unsuitable.
Pavia’s issue makes reference to a number of former NCAA players who claim he may continue playing for the Commodores. After four NCAA times, Florida State player Chris Weinke won the Heisman Trophy at the age of 28. Pavia, 23, recalls. Before joining Florida State in 1997, Weinke played ball professionally for six decades. According to Pavia, the Weinke example illustrates how “NCAA rules do not reduce the original professional athlete’s ability to benefit from NIL while playing Division I football, even though they have had a chance to actually adult far beyond that of a typical 18-year-old college freshman.” Bo Nix, a quarterback for the Denver Broncos who spent three months at Auburn before switching to Oregon for two more seasons, is mentioned.
Although Pavia acknowledges the NCAA is already weighing a plan that would help all athletes five years to enjoy five seasons, he says the prospects of acceptance are “uncertain” and that months, if not years, may go before there’s clarity. Pavia claims that he would be too late to receive a resolution.

Ryan Downton and Salvador M. Hernandez are the attorneys who represent Pavia. U. S. District Chief Judge William L. Campbell, Jr and U. S. Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern will preside over Pavia v. NCAA.
The NCAA will have the chance to try to rebut Pavi’s arguments. These rules, according to the association, help achieve crucial academic goals by directing college athletes toward graduation. The NCAA might also assert that the rules promote competitive balance because they facilitate fair competition between member colleges. Further, the NCAA could insist that Pavia’s alleged harm is not imminent, since his case concerns his eligibility for 2025-26, and that the controversy does not yet warrant judicial intervention.
Courts were largely supportive of those kinds of arguments up until recently.
Not anymore.
When Shawne Alston and Ed O’Bannon won the NCAA in their antitrust case, those claims lost credibility. U.S. District Judge Clifton Corker blocked the NCAA from enforcing rules that govern NIL collectives earlier this year in a different federal district court in Tennessee. And the aforementioned House settlement, which U. S. District Judge Claudia Wilken has preliminarily approved, envisions colleges having the chance to opt into a pay-for-play model. Colleges will make direct payments to athletes, subject to an annual salary-cap-style limit, for media rights, ticket sales, sponsorships and NIL.
College sports are increasingly difficult for the NCAA to portray as a product that is distinct from professional sports and deserving of respect in the eyes of antitrust scrutiny. Judges have taken notice and ruled accordingly.