NCAA Implicates in Antitrust Dilemma due to Diego Pavia Lawsuit
In a significant development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently heard dueling oral arguments from the NCAA and Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia. The case, which revolves around Pavia's eligibility to play this fall, has sparked a lively debate on the boundaries of antitrust law and the NCAA's eligibility rules.
The appeal is centred around the preliminary injunction granted by Chief U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell Jr., allowing Pavia to play this season. The NCAA and Vanderbilt are now challenging this decision.
Kilaru, representing Pavia, urged the judges not to find mootness since Pavia could seek to play another season in 2026. In response, the judges demanded clarity on whether the case is already over, given that Pavia is playing this fall and the NCAA has promised not to withdraw the waiver even if it wins the appeal.
The debate extended to the question of whether college athletes could sue over GPA minimum requirements as antitrust problems. Hermandorfer, another attorney, questioned Downton, the NCAA's representative, about the potential for courts to hold trials on whether a certain GPA number is reasonable.
Downton, in turn, argued that if the NCAA is to receive an exemption, it should be created by Congress or through collective bargaining, a notion that arises from the idea of college athletes being recognised as employees and unionised.
The judges emphasised a "classic restraint of trade" problem with the NCAA's eligibility rules. If a football player decides to play in JUCO, where Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) opportunities are minimal, he risks losing out on Division I football opportunities.
Hermandorfer also questioned the NCAA's position, stating that their worry seems to be that "older and more experienced players" will occupy roster slots and push out junior and less experienced players. This concern was met with a response from Downton, who agreed that the appeal isn't moot and questioned whether the legal process would move fast enough for Pavia to know whether he can play in college in fall 2026 or whether he'd need to pursue the NFL.
The judges suggested that the legal analysis should consider Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in NCAA v. Alston, where he described power conference college sports as big-time business. This could potentially open the door for more stringent antitrust scrutiny of the NCAA's eligibility rules.
The judges also highlighted the challenge of players suing too late or too early in antitrust challenges against NCAA eligibility rules, a point raised by Kilaru. Meanwhile, Kilaru argued that the NCAA's eligibility rules are not commercial in nature and thus not appropriate for antitrust scrutiny.
Downton, however, suggested that GPA could be subject to antitrust analysis but argued it's a reasonable restraint on trade. This was met with a counterpoint from Hermandorfer, who mentioned that in today's college sports world, there are "unlimited transfers" and "various ways to delay" one's NCAA eligibility.
The judges expressed concern that the case might now be "academic," since Pavia has already obtained what he sought and can't lose it at this point. However, they also hinted at a ruling coming sooner rather than later, given the importance of timing in this matter.
Expect a ruling from the court within the next couple of months. The decision could have far-reaching implications for the NCAA's eligibility rules and the future of college sports.
