In Part 1 of “Game of Monopoly,” we looked at the Robinson v. NCAA case where four West Virginia University athletes challenged NCAA rulings barring them from competing in the 2025-26 college football season after the NCAA determined they were out of eligibility.
In a similar case pending in federal court in Nashville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt University’s starting quarterback Diego Pavia sued the NCAA for the same reasons after ruling he was disqualified under the “5 years to play 4 years” rule. Pavia, like the plaintiffs in Robinson, started his collegiate career at a junior college, New Mexico Military Academy and then went on to his first NCAA school, New Mexico State University, where he earned Conference USA Offensive Player of the Year honors in 2023. Pavia then jumped into the portal and landed at Vanderbilt where he was slated to start before the NCAA ruled him ineligible.
Pavia sued and back on December 18, 2024, the trial court granted him a preliminary injunction against the NCAA, allowing him to play this season. That ruling is now on appeal.
Of recent note, after receiving the initial briefs filed by the NCAA and Pavia, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a request for the parties to answer the following questions:
-
- Does the settlement in the NCAA case In re Coll. Athlete NIL Litig., No. 20-CV-03919 CW (N.D. Cal. 2025) affect the Court’s review of (a) whether the rules Pavia challenges are “commercial in nature” and (b) the rules’ anticompetitive and procompetitive effects?
-
- The NCAA in its appellate brief noted that it gave athletes like Pavia (and Robinson) a one-time waiver for this school year. The Court, essentially, asked whether the waiver for Pavia moots the need for an injunction.
Both parties filed supplemental briefs in response, the gist of which are as follows:
Pavia’s Position. The House settlement helps his case. It shows the rules are anticompetitive. And, the Court should not deem the injunction moot, in part because the issues in the case are likely to recur for other athletes.
The NCAA’s Position. The House settlement helps its case. And the NCAA maintains, as it did in Robinson, that the rule limiting liability to four playing years (out of 5 total years) guarantees that new student athletes also get a chance to compete. The NCAA also stresses that the fact that Pavia cannot compete (under its decision) because he is out of eligibility does not amount to a showing that the rule has anticompetitive effects across the market.
And the Pavia case demonstrates as well as any the impact of these cases, not only on athletes, like Pavia – who is able to play while the case is pending, but also on schools and sports fans. With Pavia under center, Vanderbilt is currently undefeated, and Pavia has thrown for 468 yards and 5 touchdowns, with only 1 interception. In fact, he starred last night in the Commodores game against the Virginia Tech Hokies. We’ll stay tuned.
Update:
Having led Vanderbilt to its best season in many years, the Pavia case reaches even greater significance. Not only did the athlete challenge the NCAA and win, but reached the highest echelon of college football in the same season. Pavia–who began his career in junior college is now a household name.
Check out his interview on the Pivot Podcast show here:
