By: Nick Johnston
Intro
“The national debate about amateurism in college sports is important. But our task as appellate judges is not to resolve it. Nor could we. Our task is simply to review the district court judgment through the appropriate lens of antitrust law.”[1]
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in NCAA v. Alston addressed a challenge to the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) rules on compensation limits for student- athletes, which the plaintiffs alleged violated the Sherman Act’s prohibition on “contract[s], combination[s], or conspirac[ies] in restraint of trade or commerce.”[2] While the suit focused specifically on compensation restrictions, its implications on the governance of NCAA athletic competitions extend far beyond. The Court established precedent subjecting NCAA to a heightened scrutiny; the NCAA must show a “legally valid procompetitive justification for its remaining compensation rules” to survive challenge.[3] Subsequently, the NCAA faced a flurry of anti- trust litigation relating to not only compensation restrictions, but also transfer constraints, NIL-related policies, employment status, and eligibility limitations in the time following the decision.[4] Challenges to the NCAA’s eligibility rules have dominated recent sports headlines. Between 2024 and August 2025 there were 33 distinct lawsuits challenging the NCAA’s eligibility rules, and more arise at the dawn of each sports offseason.[5] The most common challenges attack the NCAA’s five-year rule which disallows student athletes to engage in more than four seasons of intercollegiate competition, and this participation must be done within five calendar years from their first semester.[6] While the Supreme Court in Alston cautioned lower courts against resolving the debate of amateurism in college sports, fragmented and inconsistent judicial decisions at both state and federal levels have only fueled broader controversy.[7]
Eligibility Roulette: Inconsistent Judicial Results
Perhaps the most notable challenge to the five- year rule involved Diego Pavia, the highly decorated Vanderbilt quarterback who finished runner-up in Heisman voting in the 2024-2025 season.[8] A successful petition for a 5th year (excluding a universally approved COVID year) of eligibility enabled his spectacular season. In the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, he argued his two seasons at a non-NCAA junior college should not count against his “eligibility clock.”[9] Both the NCAA and Pavia agreed the NCAA bylaws included two- year junior colleges such that the two years he spent at the New Mexico Military Academy would typically count towards the clock.[10] However, the court enjoined the NCAA from denying Pavia an additional year of eligibility, reasoning NCAA Division 1 schools and NJCAA schools compete directly for the same athletic talent.[11] There is disparity in that NCAA Division 1 schools offer significantly greater compensation than NJCAA schools do.[12] As a result, athletes are induced to choose NCAA Division 1 schools even when attending a junior college is in their best interest.[13] Accordingly, the NCAA issued waivers deeming Pavia and several similarly situated players eligible for the 2025 season.[14] Importantly, Pavia did not win the case on the merits of his antitrust claim, obtaining only a preliminary injunction. The NCAA appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, but the appeal was dismissed as moot due to the NCCA’s issuance of the blanket waiver.[15]
Assumably, the time pressured nature of the NIL era forced the NCAA to issue the injunction. In 2024 alone, 10,569 undergraduates and 4,506 graduates entered the Division 1 transfer portal in all sports.[16]. Given these numbers will inevitably rise, a clear consensus on eligibility rules is essential for young individuals making significant life decisions. However, recent developments have only complicated the issue further.
Since Pavia’s injunctive relief, 47 eligibility cases posing the same or similar anti-trust arguments were filed in federal court with the NCAA prevailing in well over half.[17] Consequently, a trend of petitions in state courts developed.[18] One such case, filed January 2026, involved former Tennessee Quarterback Joey Aguilar.[19] Aguilar spent four total years in Junior College (including 2019 Redshirt year and 2020 Covid Year) and another three years at the Division 1 level.[20] Aguilar argued counting NJCAA years against eligibility for Division 1 Football violated Tennessee’s Trade Practices Act by limiting free competition.[21] After being granted a temporary restraining order against the NCAA, the Knox County Chancellor ultimately struck down his chances at eligibility for the 2026 season, ruling Aguilar failed to show the NCAA bylaws had anticompetitive effects.[22] Thus, despite similar factual circumstances, Aguilar and Pavia received starkly different outcomes: Pavia succeeded in Tennessee federal court, while Aguilar failed in Tennessee state court. Importantly, Aguilar is unable litigate further due strict deadlines imposed by the NFL to declare for the draft, which he has done.[23]
To complicate things further, federal and state anti-trust arguments are not the only avenues student-athletes are taking to earn additional eligibility. Several new state arguments put forward breach of contract theories against the NCAA.[24] One ongoing case involves Trinidad Chambliss, a quarterback for Ole Miss University. His suit argues student athletes are 3rd party beneficiaries of contracts between the NCAA and its member institutions.[25] Specifically, he argues the NCAA’s denial of request for a medical hardship waiver in 2022 violated an implied duty of good faith required by Mississippi law.[26] As of March 5, 2026, this argument has earned Chambliss a preliminary injunction allowing his eligibility for a 6th season.[27] The NCAA has since filed an appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court.[28] If the NCAA’s appeal is successful, Chambliss will have missed the deadline to declare for the NFL draft.
A concerning thread runs through each of these three eligibility petitions. Each of the three NCAA institutions involved- Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and Ole Miss- are all members of the Southeastern Conference. Vanderbilt’s 2024-2025 Heisman runner-up candidate was able to compete due to a successful anti-trust suit argued in federal court. Tennessee’s 2025-2026 season will not include Joey Aguilar due to an unsuccessful anti-trust claim under Tennessee state law. Trinidad Chambliss’ eligibility for Ole Miss University’s 2025-2026 season rests on the decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court on contract law. The three schools compete against each other most years. While the Supreme Court in Alston suggested the debate of amateurism in collegiate athletics is not to be determined by the courts, the growing trend of inconsistent rulings and patchwork injunctions is unsustainable. Eligibility for collegiate athletics should not turn on which plaintiffs present the most persuasive legal argument or select the most favorable forum for litigation in an increasingly time pressurized environment.
About the Author
Nick Johnston is a J.D. candidate at Widener University Delaware Law School, Class of 2027. He currently serves as a staff editor for the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law. In 2024, he graduated cum laude in Government from Franklin & Marshall College. There, he participated on the football team and served on the student athletic leadership counsel.
[1] Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69, 107 (2021) (quoting Alston v. NCAA (In re NCAA Ath. Grant-In-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig.), 958 F.3d 1239, 1265 (9th Cir. 2020)).
[2] Id. at 80; 15 U.S.C. § 1.
[3] Alston, 594 U.S. at 108 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).
[4] Bouchard et al., Recent NCAA Eligibility Rulings Highlight Expanding Judicial Role in College Athletics Governance, Morgan Lewis (Mar. 3, 2026), https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/03/recent-ncaa-eligibility-rulings-highlight-expanding-judicial-role-in-college-athletics-governance.
[5] Amanda Christovich, NCAA’s Recent Wins May Not Be Enough to Stop Flood of Eligibility Lawsuit, Front Office Sports (Aug. 11, 2025, 4:44PM), https://frontofficesports.com/ncaas-recent-wins-may-not-be-enough-to-stop-flood-of-eligibility-lawsuits/#:~:text=Since%202024%2C%20the%20NCAA%20has,filings%20coming%20just%20last%20week [hereinafter Flood of Eligibility Lawsuits].
[6] Pavia v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 760 F. Supp. 3d 527, 533 (M.D. Tenn. 2024).
[7] See Flood of Eligibility Lawsuits, supra note 5.
[8] Diego Pavia Finishes Second in Heisman Voting, Vanderbilt U. (Dec. 13, 2025), https://vucommodores.com/diego-pavia-finishes-second-in-heisman-voting.
[9] Pavia, 760 F. Supp. 3d at 533.
[10] Id. at 533.
[11] Id. at 541, 542.
[12] Id.
[13] Pavia, 760 F. Supp. 3d at 541, 542.
[14] Scott Dochterman, Joey Aguilar Shifts Focus to NFL, Done Pursuing Eligibility Case for Seventh College Season, The Athletic (Feb. 27, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7075919/2026/02/27/joey-aguilar-tennessee-ncaa-eligibility-nfl/ [hereinafter Eligibility Case for Seventh College Season].
[15] See Pavia v. Nat’l. Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 154 F.4th 407 (6th Cir. Oct. 1, 2025)
[16] Transfer Portal Data: Division 1 Student- Athlete Transfer Trends, NCAA https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2022/4/25/transfer-portal-data-division-i-student-athlete-transfer-trends.aspx (last visited Mar. 15, 2026).
[17] Amanda Christovich, Why State Courts May Be the Key to Winning More NCAA Eligibility, Front Office Sports(Feb. 5, 2026) https://frontofficesports.com/why-state-courts-may-be-the-key-to-winning-more-ncaa-eligibility/ [hereinafter Christovich, Winning More NCAA Eligibility].
[18] Id.
[19] See Hope McAlee, Lawyer Breaks Down Joey Aguilar’s Failed Bid for Another Season, Future Legal Questions for NCAA, Yahoo Sports (Feb. 25, 2026), https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/lawyer-breaks-down-joey-aguilar-181908140.html [hereinafter McAlee, Bid for Another Season].
[20] See Eligibility Case for Seventh College Season, supra note 14.
[21] McAlee, Bid for Another Season, supra note 18.
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Christovich, Winning More NCAA eligibility, supra note 17
[25] Sheng and Zimmerman, Chambliss v. NCAA: A Potential New Playbook for Future NCAA Eligibility Lawsuits, Venable LLP (Feb. 19, 2026), https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2026/02/chambliss-v-ncaa-a-potential-new-playbook
[26] Id.
[27] Pete Thamel & Dan Wetzel, NCAA Appealing Ruling Granting Ole Miss QB Chambliss a 6th Year, ESPN (Mar. 5, 2026) https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/48114754/ncaa-appealing-ruling-granting-ole-miss-qb-chambliss-6th-year.
[28] Id.
Leave a Reply