A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Wednesday dismissed as moot the NCAA’s appeal of Chief U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell Jr.’s ruling last December to grant Vanderbilt quarterback and former JUCO transfer Diego Pavia a preliminary injunction to play this fall.
Circuit Judges Amul Thapar, Chad Readler and Whitney Hermandorfer reasoned that the NCAA’s appeal of an injunction is no longer necessary. Pavia is already playing this fall, and the NCAA granted a waiver to Pavia and similarly situated athletes for the 2025-26 academic year.
Writing for the panel, Thapar explained why the NCAA’s appeal is, at this point, merely about concepts and policy rather than real-world issues pertaining to Campbell’s order. Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts can only decide cases and controversies where they can grant relief to the parties.
That can’t happen here, since the relief has already been granted. Pavia has made the most of the relief by leading No. 16 Vanderbilt to a 5-0 record entering a weekend showdown with No. 10 Alabama, a program Pavia and the Commodores defeated in memorable fashion last season.
“No matter the outcome of this appeal,” Thapar wrote, “Pavia has already obtained the full relief he initially sought by requesting a preliminary injunction.” The outcome of the appeal would have no impact on whether Pavia can play this fall.
Both Pavia and the NCAA argued to the panel that the appeal was not moot, but Thapar found their arguments unpersuasive and flawed. Pavia suggested that discovery in his case against the NCAA hinges on the outcome of the appeal, but Thapar disagreed, noting that Campbell stayed discovery pending the Sixth Circuit issuing a decision. That decision has now been made, and his case can continue at the district court level.
As to the NCAA, it “worries that Pavia will seek more years of eligibility.” Pavia, 24, can earn millions of dollars a year through NIL and revenue share as a star quarterback for a power conference school, while his prospects for playing and succeeding in the NFL are questionable given that he is relatively small (he’s listed at 6-feet even).
Thapar wrote that concern is irrelevant for purposes of an injunction that allowed Pavia to play in fall 2025. Whether Pavia might try to play additional seasons in is not at issue in the appeal.
The mootness ruling means there is no split yet among federal circuit courts on cases involving seasoned college athletes challenging NCAA eligibility rules. A circuit split could attract interest of the U.S. Supreme Court, with college athletes and the NCAA having different rights in different parts of the country. In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit sided with the NCAA against a case brought by Wisconsin cornerback Nyzier Fourqurean. Wednesday’s ruling doesn’t agree or disagree with the Seventh Circuit, since it doesn’t address the merits of the controversy.
While the three-judge panel dismissed the appeal on grounds that are unrelated to the heart of the case—whether NCAA rules limiting the number of seasons a college athlete can play are subject to and, if so, whether those rules comply with or violate antitrust law—Thapar and Hermandorfer offered concurring opinions that revealed their viewpoints on the substance of the case.
Thapar wrote a concurrence praising Pavia’s “remarkable career . . . from undersized recruit to junior-college champion to star SEC quarterback” as embodying “the American athletic dream.” He then added NCAA eligibility rules pose “unique difficulties for judges” given that college sports is a mixture of education and athletics outside the boundaries of employment.
Along those lines, Thapar contends that Pavia and other eligibility cases require much more evidence and data than are typically available at the preliminary injunction stage. He noted that antitrust cases hinge on identifying the relevant market, and Pavia and the NCAA don’t agree on the market. Identifying the market in an antitrust case “usually requires evidence of economic competition, substitute products or services, and consumers’ response to price changes,” Thapar wrote.
He mentioned that Pavia believes the market is the labor market for NCAA Division I college football or college football in general, but more extensive deliberations are necessary to determine if those are correct. To that point, Thapar noted that Pavia “hasn’t yet introduced any statistics or studies proving that players actually choose NCAA schools over junior colleges because of the JUCO Rule.”
While Thapar seemed unpersuaded by the analysis put forth by Pavia, he was similarly underwhelmed by the NCAA’s offerings.
The NCAA relied on an expert who “hypothesized that the JUCO Rule helps make NCAA college football a special athletic product,” but Thapar suggested that hypothetical isn’t helpful when the expert “hasn’t yet cited any evidence that consumers prefer the sport—and that the NCAA’s revenue therefore holds steady or grows—because players’ junior-college years count toward their limit of eligible seasons.”
Thapar also insisted that the “absence of cold, hard data” is “especially glaring” in today’s world of college sports. He noted that the law and economics of college sports are changing quickly. To that end, he referenced how, through the House settlement, the NCAA reversed decades of anti-compensation rules by agreeing to allow member schools to pay players directly,” which will have “seismic effects on the college-football market.”
Further, Thapar pointed out that the NIL market is evolving, and with “unlimited transfers between schools” there are forces that influence the market effects of limiting or allowing players like Pavia to play.
Thapar suggested that Congress could play a helpful role by “stepping in to preserve these benefits for the millions of young athletes yet to come.”
While there have been many bills introduced in Congress in recent years that would reform college sports in one way or another, none has advanced. However, as Sportico explained in March, a bill that only addresses eligibility might have more traction. Thapar implies Congress should view its role as essential, and that until then “judges should tread carefully in this area and insist on a thorough record from which to rule.”
Hermandorfer’s concurring opinion included her view that a key analytical question is “how foreclosing experienced former JUCO players from their would-be third and fourth years of NCAA competition affects the Division I football labor market.” Incorporating the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston (2021), she wrote in this labor market the NCAA “has not disputed it enjoys monopsony control.” She added the NCAA is capable “of depressing wages below competitive levels and restricting the quantity of student-athlete labor.”
Hermandorfer wrote that it “remains to be seen” whether NCAA rules limiting eligibility to four seasons of intercollegiate competition—including JUCO and D-II competition—within a five-year period withstand antitrust scrutiny. While the NCAA says its rule limiting JUCO eligibility helps to maintain a “high, sub-professional level of play,” Hermandorfer doesn’t appear convinced at this stage.
Along those lines, Hermandorfer reasoned that “if Pavia can sufficiently show that the JUCO Rule works anticompetitive effects within the Division I football labor market, the NCAA must respond on antitrust terms with economic evidence.” The judge reasoned that courts would want to know how changed realities in college sports—including colleges directly paying athletes, college athletes having unlimited transfers, and “seemingly prevalent participation by older, non-JUCO players on Division I football teams through pathways like prep years, waivers and redshirting”—impact the market.
In sum, the judges reasoned the antitrust analysis hinges on the production of much more evidence and empirical data than has been presented by either side.
In the meantime, expect more Pavia-like lawsuits that continue to yield conflicting outcomes in courts across the country. Whether Congress eventually steps in, as Thapar recommends, remains to be seen.