Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia dealt the NCAA another defeat in court on Tuesday when a U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction allowing Pavia to play college football next season. Pavia, who led Vanderbilt to its first win over Alabama in 40 years, began his college football career at a junior college (JUCO) before transferring to New Mexico State. This season, which ends with a Dec. 27 appearance in the Birmingham Bowl, was Pavia’s first season at Vanderbilt and would initially be his only season with the Commodores until November when he filed a lawsuit against the NCAA’s JUCO eligibility rules on antitrust grounds. Transfers submitted. While the ruling is specific to Pavia, the reasoning contained therein is likely to have a significant impact on NCAA athletes who started in the junior college ranks and could also impact the NCAA’s ability to enforce other eligibility rules currently in effect.

What is a restraining order?

Most lawsuits (including those against the NCAA) seek monetary damages/compensation for injustices suffered. Pavia’s lawsuit sought an injunction against the NCAA enforcing its eligibility rules, allowing Pavia to play an additional season after this year. An injunction is simply a court order that prevents a party from engaging in certain activities, in this case preventing the NCAA from enforcing its rules. Pavia was granted an interim injunction, which is granted by a court in cases where a full trial on the matter is impracticable. In these cases, the plaintiff must prove that he or she would suffer “irreparable harm” if the preliminary injunction were not granted. The court system moves slowly. In this particular case, Pavia’s college career would have ended later that month, long before a full trial could have taken place.

It is worth noting that an injunction is, by definition, temporary. If the NCAA chooses to pursue this case, it could theoretically still win a full trial on the merits. However, another requirement for plaintiffs seeking an injunction is that they can demonstrate that they are likely to succeed in a full trial. Chief District Judge William Campbell analyzed Pavia’s arguments and concluded that he was likely to succeed on the merits. The entire trial would also take place before Judge Campbell, meaning any new piece of evidence or reframing of arguments would have to change his mind. That seems like a long shot.

Why did Judge Campbell issue the injunction?

Essentially, Pavia argues that the NCAA is restricting the job market for college football players in violation of antitrust laws by limiting eligibility for junior college transfers and making their years of junior college competition one of their four eligible years in the NCAA competition matters. The NCAA argued that the eligibility rules were non-commercial and therefore not subject to antitrust scrutiny, relying on precedent from previous cases involving the NCAA. Pavia argued, and Judge Campbell agreed, that these cases were decided in a collegiate sports landscape that was significantly different than what it has become since the Alston ruling in 2020, asserting that “when the NCAA restricted the NIL -Compensation was abolished, rules governing who could play – that is, who could enter the NCAA Division I football job market – became “commercial in nature.”

The court also concluded that limiting the eligibility of junior college players harmed competition in the labor market because, among other things, it encouraged athletes to enroll at NCAA institutions rather than junior colleges. At this point, the onus was on the NCAA to explain any pro-competitive benefits of its eligibility rules. They resorted to familiar arguments about the need for these rules to preserve collegiate athletics as unique from professional athletics. They even went so far as to argue that expanding eligibility would also lengthen academic careers, and that was somehow a bad thing. These arguments failed to convince Judge Campbell that the rule was necessary.

Does this mean all junior college athletes will have another year of eligibility?

Currently, this injunction only applies to and affects Diego Pavia. Additional injunctions have recently been issued against the NCAA over other rules, most notably in the case of the attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia seeking (and obtaining) an injunction against the NCAA’s enforcement of certain NIL rules. The NCAA essentially dismissed the matter after the injunction was issued and has since refused to enforce its rules regarding NIL “incentives.” According to Ross Dellenger of Yahoo Sports, the NCAA currently has no plans to change its eligibility rules or grant additional years of eligibility to other athletes, a clear departure from its previous policies regarding injunctions.

Even though Pavia is a quarterback in a major college football conference, there isn’t much in Judge Campbell’s analysis that would prevent him from reaching the same conclusion with other former junior college athletes who might challenge the rule come. Unless the NCAA decides to change its rules regarding the years in which junior college transfers are eligible (or decline to enforce those rules), they will be subject to a barrage of copycat lawsuits, some of which may are already in progress. When Pavia’s attorney Ryan Downton of the Texas Trial Group was asked whether he thought the NCAA would continue to fight this issue or change its rules, Downton responded, “It’s hard to predict what the NCAA will do.” In other cases, they have They negotiated a resolution after the preliminary injunction phase of the lawsuit. We hope they do the same here, as we believe the court’s decision is in the best interest of not only Diego Pavia, but all former junior college football players (and college football as a whole).”

Does this threaten the remaining NCAA eligibility rules?

The question is where the rest of the NCAA’s eligibility rules lie and whether this decision will ultimately result in college athletes having near-unlimited eligibility. While the NCAA has struggled with lawsuits, unlimited eligibility seems pretty far-fetched. First of all, this rule is very narrowly tailored, not only to the NCAA rules for junior college athletes, but also to Pavia. Nothing in this injunction invalidates the NCAA’s rules, which give athletes five years to compete in four seasons. While this rule may later be challenged, the NCAA’s problem in this particular case was treating junior college transfers differently than others, which is not a relevant argument for other eligibility rules. While this loss is not good for the NCAA, any idea that non-students can play on college teams is extremely far-fetched.

What will the NCAA do from here?

Although they have stated that they have no plans to change their rules regarding years of eligibility for former junior college athletes, it is their only path forward. You can try to file an emergency appeal against this injunction, but it seems unlikely that this will be granted. They can see this case through to a full trial on the merits, but their chances of changing Judge Campbell’s mind appear slim. Hoping that other athletes won’t file copycat lawsuits is foolish. Maybe they think their arguments would be better received by a different judge in a different district. Good luck with that. They will most likely give in and change the rule. It is their only realistic step at this point.