Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—6th Cir.: NCAA appeal of Pavia eligibility suit moot, (Oct 1, 2025)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

The NCAA had granted Pavia and others in his position a waiver to play in the current football season, mooting the appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction granted by the federal district court in Nashville barring the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility rules against a student athlete, and barring the NCAA from taking punitive measures under its so-called "Rule of Restitution against the athlete or any educational institution if the injunction is subsequently found to have been granted in error. Vanderbilt University quarterback Diego Pavia had sued the NCAA alleging that its eligibility rules violate the Sherman Act by diminishing his career earning power in restricting him from playing college football. After the district court entered the injunction, and the NCAA appealed, the NCAA issued a waiver to players in Pavia’s position allowing them to play in the current season. Because Pavia obtained the full relief requested, and because the NCAA’s requested relief of reversal will accomplish nothing related to Pavia playing this season, the appellate court found the NCAA’s appeal of the injunction was moot (Pavia v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 24-6153 (6th Cir. Oct. 1, 2025)).

Background. Pavia enrolled in a junior college for two years and obtained an associate degree. He then transferred to Division I school New Mexico State University, where he played football for two years as he earned his bachelor's degree. Pavia then enrolled in Vanderbilt University, where he was a star quarterback during the 2024-2025 season.

Pavia now wishes to play football for Vanderbilt during the 2025-2026 season, but the NCAA Division I rules, which restrict college athletes to playing four seasons during the five-year period beginning with their initial fulltime enrollment at a "collegiate institution" (the Five-Year Rule) make him ineligible to play football for Vanderbilt. Had Pavia enrolled in a preparatory school such as the U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School, any football activity there would not count towards exhausting his eligibility under the Five-Year Rule; similarly, had he managed to go directly to a NFL team after graduating high school and played professionally for a few years before enrolling in college, he would start college with complete eligibility to play football during the next four years (and be a competitive adversary to younger and less-experienced aspiring football players).

The NCAA Division I also has a so-called "Redshirt Rule" that allows football player athletes to play a maximum of four games in a season without losing a year of eligibility Pavia estimates that if he is able to play football at Vanderbilt during the 2025-2026 season, the public visibility he would gain from playing would increase his potential lifetime NIL earnings by millions of dollars. He seeks to negotiate NIL opportunities with schools other than Vanderbilt, but the NCAA has a 20-day "Transfer Portal" time window, which this year is from December 9, 2024 to December 28, 2024.

Pavia alleged that by counting junior-college seasons in his four permitted years of intercollegiate competition, the NCAA violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Pavia moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility rules that would bar him from playing during the 2025-2026 season.

The federal district court in Nashville, Tennessee granted Pavia’s motion for a preliminary injunction. It enjoined the NCAA from enforcing the JUCO Rule against Pavia during the 2025 season. And it enjoined enforcement of the restitution rule against Vanderbilt and Pavia based on Pavia playing in the 2025 season. The NCAA timely appealed, but also issued a waiver allowing all players in Pavia’s position to play one more season in 2025. Any player who had enrolled full-time and used a season of competition at a non-NCAA school could play in the 2025 season, as long as he had used his fourth and final season of competition in 2024 and was otherwise eligible.

Mootness. The appeal was moot because of the NCAA waiver prevented the court from providing either party effectual relief, according to the appellate court. No matter the outcome of the appeal, Pavia has already obtained the full relief he sought. Also, the NCAA’s requested relief of reversal will accomplish nothing, as Pavia will play with or without the preliminary injunction. Further, Pavia’s eligibility also makes the restitution rule irrelevant because Pavia is not competing while “ineligible” or “contrary” to NCAA rules.

Both Pavia and the NCAA claimed that an exception to mootness applied because this issue was “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” This exception applies only when the challenged action must be so short in time that the case can’t be fully litigated before the action ends, and there must be “a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.” Neither of these conditions was met. The NCAA’s application of its JUCO Rule to Pavia was not so short as to evade review. The court would have had time to review the injunction and hand down a decision before the end of the 2025 season. Another circuit had ruled on a challenge similar to Pavia’s in plenty of time to affect the athletic season in question. Also, the action now before us—the NCAA’s enforcement of the JUCO Rule to bar Pavia’s participation in the 2025 season—was not capable of repetition. The NCAA would not be “again” subjected to suit if Pavia seeks another season, because his suit is already in progress and amenable to timely resolution.

The court noted that the ruling does not preclude Pavia from proceeding with discovery in the lower court.

Concurrence. The concurring justices noted the sheer volume of open questions that remain before a court can thoughtfully analyze NCAA eligibility cases, and that dozens of courts have split on challenges to NCAA rules limiting player mobility, eligibility, and compensation.

Going forward, the concurring justices urged the parties to provide additional information critical to fully assessing the JUCO Rule’s soundness in antitrust, as well as more specificity and evidence about the relevant.

The Case is No. 24-6153.

Attorneys: Ryan Downton (The Texas Trial Group) for Diego Pavia. Rakesh Kilaru (Wilkinson Stekloff LLP) for National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Companies: National Collegiate Athletic Association

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews GCNNews