A PYMNTS Company

DOJ Weighs in on NCAA Eligibility Lawsuit, Citing Antitrust Concerns

By  |  June 4, 2025
NCAA

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has submitted a statement of interest to a federal court in Tennessee, arguing that antitrust law should be applied to the NCAA’s longstanding four-seasons rule. The case, brought by University of Tennessee basketball standout Zakai Zeigler, centers on whether the NCAA can lawfully limit student-athletes to four seasons of intercollegiate competition within a five-year span.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    According to Sportico, Zeigler, who recently earned his degree from Tennessee, is seeking a fifth season of eligibility as a graduate student. He argues that another year on the court could bring in up to $4 million through name, image, and likeness (NIL) endorsements. Despite his decorated college career—including two SEC Defensive Player of the Year awards—Zeigler is considered undersized for the NBA at 5-foot-9 and has limited professional prospects, making a fifth college season financially crucial.

    The DOJ’s filing, while stopping short of endorsing Zeigler’s position outright, challenges the NCAA’s argument that eligibility rules should be exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Per Sportico, the NCAA contends that such rules do not constitute commercial activity and are therefore outside the reach of antitrust law. The association relies on legal precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which has previously deemed eligibility standards to fall beyond the scope of antitrust enforcement.

    We’d love to be your preferred source for news.

    Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!

    Add as Preferred Source

    However, the DOJ argues that this case falls squarely within the parameters established by the Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston (2021), which applied antitrust law to NCAA compensation limits. In its statement, the DOJ emphasizes that restrictions like the four-season cap can have meaningful effects on the student-athlete labor market and thus merit a “rule of reason” analysis under antitrust principles.

    Related: Athletes File New Objections to NCAA’s $2.8 Billion Settlement Proposal

    As explained by Sportico, the rule of reason approach involves a three-step legal process. First, the plaintiff must show that the contested rule has a substantial anticompetitive effect—often measured in terms of harm to market participants, such as athletes. If successful, the burden shifts to the defendant—in this case, the NCAA—to demonstrate a legitimate procompetitive justification, such as preserving the educational mission of college athletics or maintaining a clear boundary between collegiate and professional sports. Should the NCAA meet that threshold, Zeigler would then have the opportunity to propose a less restrictive alternative that achieves the same goals.

    The DOJ’s position was crafted by several high-level legal officials, including Nickolai G. Levin, assistant chief in the DOJ Antitrust Division’s appellate section, and Roger P. Alford, a law professor at Notre Dame currently serving as principal deputy assistant attorney general.

    U.S. District Judge Katherine A. Crytzer, who is presiding over the case, is set to hold a hearing on Friday to determine whether Zeigler should be granted a temporary injunction allowing him to compete while the case unfolds. The outcome could have broad implications not just for Zeigler but for the structure of NCAA eligibility rules moving forward.

    Source: Sportico