By Professor Robert J. Romano, JD, LLM, St. John’s University, Senior Writer
On November 11, 2024, Diego Pavia, a senior quarterback for the Vanderbilt University football team, filed for declaratory and injunctive relief against National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) alleging that the governing body is in violation Section 1 of the Sherman Act.[1] That lawsuit, brought in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville, challenged NCAA Bylaws 12.8, 12.02.6, and 14.3.3 (the “JUCO Eligibility Limitation Bylaws”) which, in essence, reduces the number of years former junior college football players can play Division I NCAA football after transferring to an NCAA Division I school, while at the same time unjustifiably restraining the ability of these college athletes to earn money through use of their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) connected to their work as a Division I football player.[2]
This 2024-25 college football season, with Pavia at the helm as quarterback, the Vanderbilt University football team has seen historic success, beating both the University of Alabama and Auburn University, and the team will be playing in a bowl game for the first time since 2018.[3] Because of this on-field success, it is estimated that the young Commodore gunslinger could earn is excess of $1 million in NIL compensation next year during the 2025-26 season.[4] But because Pavia attended the New Mexico Military Academy for one year, a junior college that is not a member institution of the NCAA, he was able to capitalize on his and the team’s success since the time he played their “counts” towards his collegiate athletic eligibility under current NCAA rules. As such, Pavia sought with the District Court a preliminary injunction precluding the NCAA from enforcing the Intercollegiate Competition Rules that prohibit him from competing in football during the 2025-26 season by counting his 2021 season of junior college football as one year of intercollegiate competition, contending that such enforcement is an undue restraint on the labor market for college football players.
Per Federal Rules, Pavia’s request for a preliminary injunction “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”[5] Therefore, the District Court, in deciding whether Pavia’s requested should be granted per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, considered the following: (1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction; (3) the balance of equities; and (4) the impact of the injunction on the public interest.[6] In addition, the Court was mindful that while these factors are a balancing test, “even the strongest showing on the other three factors cannot eliminate the irreparable harm requirement.”[7] Conversely, however, the Court noted, that a failure to establish a likelihood of success on the merits “is usually fatal’ to a plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction.”[8]
Upon it final analysis, the District Court determined that because of the equities involved and of the public’s interest is served by promoting free and fair competition in the labor markets, that the granting the injunction was proper in the matter.[9] The Court based its decision on the fact that the scope of injunctive relief sought by Pavia is narrow – to preclude the NCAA from enforcing Bylaw 12.02.6 – to allow him to play next season while this case plays out, and that the NCAA’s argument that injunctive relief in this case would be a sweeping change that will “upend the Division I eligibility rules that apply across sports to over 180,000 Division I student-athletes” is overstated. In addition, the court held that enjoining the NCAA from enforcing the Intercollegiate Competition Rule as to Pavia for next season will not result in substantial harm to others or to the NCAA.[10]
Although this ruling by the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee does not immediately grant the same eligibility rights to other student-athletes playing per the rules of the NCAA, it could, if upheld on appeal, set a precedent that has the potential to significantly change the college football landscape as well as other sports at the high school, junior college and college levels.
(Editor’s note: The NCAA appealed the court’s decision shortly after the ruling to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.)
[1] 15 U.S.C. § 1
[2] Case 3:24-cv-01336 Document 1 Filed 11/08/24
[3] Pavia Decl., Doc. No. 9-1 at ¶ 4.
[4] Id at ¶ 5.
[5] Enchant Christmas Light Maze & Market Ltd. v. Glowco, LLC, 958 F.3d 532, 539 (6th Cir. 2020).
[6] Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393, 399 (6th Cir. 2017).
[7] D.T. v. Sumner Cty. Sch., 942 F.3d 324, 326-27 (6th Cir. 2019)
[8] Gonzalez v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 225 F.3d 620, 625..
[9] Case 3:24-cv-01336 Document 41 Filed 12/18/24 Page 19 of 25 PageID #: 1413.
[10] Id.
