NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP): The NCAA went back to the court on Tuesday to protect the future of its athlete eligibility regulations, with Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia as the central figure in the judicial case. Pavia is playing in his fourth season in Division I on a preliminary injunction, and this ruling has sparked the debate on whether the association restrictions are a violation of the federal antitrust law.
NCAA Stands Firm
Lawyer Rakesh Kilaru, who defends the NCAA, appeared before a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,asserting that the eligibility regulations by the governing body are legal. He argued that the regulations do not violate the Sherman Act and other antitrust safeguards and emphasized the enforcement dedication by the NCAA.
We may find ourselves back in court in weeks or months, I would venture, Kilaru said, indicating that we might still be involved in court.
The case before the appeals court will not have an impact on Pavia in the 2025 season. In 2021, the NCAA has already approved the waiver extending the eligibility to junior college athletes who would otherwise have run out of eligibility by 202425.
The Case for Diego Pavia
The decision by a federal judge in last December declared that Pavia stood a good chance of winning the case at trial by claiming the NCAA rules to be an illegal restraint of commerce under the Sherman Act.
The experience of Pavia indicates the intricacy of the rules of dispute:
2020 – He started his career at New Mexico Military Institute (pandemic year not counted).
2021 – Guide the junior college to the national championship.
2022–23 – Played for New Mexico State.
2024 – Moved to Vanderbilt, where he is in his fourth season of Division I.
Attorney Ryan Downton, who defended Pavia, advised the court on the nature of the NCAA in restricting eligibility as being commercial in nature and unfairly restricting the labor market of the athletes.
Downton pointed out after Tuesday’s hearing that despite the fact that Pavia has not changed his dreams to go to the NFL, he hopes to play professionally in 2026; the case may have an influence on future athletes.
He has been an excellent college player, but he is planning on playing in the NFL. He wants the other junior college players to have a similar opportunity as he has had, said Downton.
The Redshirt Rule and Five-Year Rule, which states that an athlete can play four seasons in a period of five years, is also challenged by Pavia in his lawsuit. Although himself not in need of a fifth year, Pavia would like it to be still possible.
Wider Implications
The case has far-reaching implications since there are 21 lawsuits against the NCAA related to eligibility. On Wednesday, Kilaru will be before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in another eligibility issue concerning Jett Elad, who wants to play at Rutgers this season.
The Five-Year Rule is also challenged in that case, but most athletes claim that it does not give them equal opportunity, yet it does not consider junior college time.
Downton, who has made several suits against these restrictions, remarked on the uncertainty of the future:
They can tell you that we want you to mature some more of the record at the district court. So what will happen, we shall see, said he.
What’s at Stake
The decision of such cases would affect thousands of athletes, particularly those who create a transition between junior colleges or use the redshirt system. To date, Pavia is so concentrated on the top of No. 20 Vanderbilt (33); however, the suit can also prove a milestone in the redesign of the NCAA eligibility system.
