In the recent case, Pavia v. NCAA, NO. 3:24-cv-01336, M.D. TN, Nashville Division, (December 18, 2024), the District Court granted a preliminary injunction to the Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia allowing him to play football in 2025 to 2026.  Under an NCAA rule, Pavia was not allowed to play another year for Vanderbilt or any other NCAA governed school after this 2024 season. Pavia sought a District Court to grant a preliminary injunction precluding application of that rule for the upcoming season and the Court granted his motion.

 Pavia graduated from high school in 2020 but had not been recruited by an NCAA school, so he went to Junior College at the New Mexico Military Academy.  He played for two years.  He did not earn any NIL compensation in this new “pay to play” college era.  He then went to New Mexico State and played two years and then transferred to Vanderbilt.  Having beat both Alabama and Auburn, he desired to play another year at Vanderbilt or at some school in the NCAA. He was denied because playing at the non-NCAA Junior College for two years counted as one year of eligibility in the NCAA.  Pavia did not like the fact that he would lose out on potentially $1 million in NIL money if he could play another year.

 This case presents an interesting twist on an "employment opportunity" for Pavia.   His unique circumstances of beating an Alabama team that was ranked number one at the time, and then also beating Auburn, thus giving Vanderbilt bragging rights over the two largest state schools in Alabama, have created significant leverage for NIL money for Pavia.  Accordingly, it is an interesting twist (see the Sherman Antitrust Act) used in the “employment” arena, so that Pavia can take advantage of this compensation opportunity.  The analysis was rather straightforward and is likely to be used in other employment matters.

 Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.  ("the Sherman Act"), requires that "[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." 15 U.S.C. § 1.  So, Pavia was required to show that the NCAA ‘"(1) participated in an agreement that (2) unreasonably restrain[s] trade in the relevant market.' Nat'l Hockey League Players' Ass'n v. Plymouth Whalers Hockey Club, 325 F.3d 712, 718 (6th Cir. 2003).” Pavia at 13.

 First, the court determined that given allowance of NIL compensation, the NCAA's eligibility rules into the commercial arena invited antitrust scrutiny.

 Second, the NCAA rules were found to have an anticompetitive effect on the labor market for college football players.

 Third, the NCAA rules appear to be pretextual in this new NIL era and are inconsistent with other practices now.

 Lastly, Pavia had proposed an alternative which maintains the eligibility restrictions but at the same time eliminates any anticompetitive harm. The alteration suggested by Pavia was to simply not count time played at a NCAA non-member institution. Thus, the term “collegiate institution” would be defined as only those who are a member of the NCAA.

 Because Pavia could show he might well prevail in this case, and further, given that there was a likelihood of substantial harm with the transferor portal only being open for a certain time and the upcoming season fast approaching, the Court granted his motion for a preliminary injunction. And so, we will see how Pavia leverages his employment opportunity. One thing is certain and that is he will likely enjoy a very handsome paycheck.