A PYMNTS Company

NCAA Eligibility Dispute Pushes Courts Into Antitrust Territory

By  |  September 16, 2025

Players tend to wait until the very last moment to bring lawsuits challenging NCAA eligibility rules, a pattern that forces courts to tackle antitrust issues under compressed timelines and with minimal preparation, according to Sportico. These late filings often stem from the uncertainty athletes face in deciding whether to extend their college careers. While, in theory, a junior college transfer could file suit immediately upon entering a Division I program, judges are reluctant to entertain cases based on speculative future harms, which can make early filings unripe for review.

    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.

    During recent arguments, attorney Kilaru emphasized that if the NCAA’s current appeal is tossed as moot, nothing would prevent quarterback Diego Pavia from launching a fresh lawsuit to seek another season, prolonging the dispute. Pavia, now in his fourth year of NCAA play—two seasons at New Mexico State followed by two at Vanderbilt—has argued that his time at junior college should not reduce his Division I eligibility under the NCAA’s four-season limit within a five-year window. Per Sportico, he may also draw on reasoning from Patterson v. NCAA, which contends that redshirt rules should permit five years of competition when athletes are allowed five years to practice and complete their degrees.

    Read more: NCAA Bans Three Players in Game-Fixing and Betting Scandal

    Attorney Downton shared Kilaru’s view that the matter is not moot but diverged on the next steps. Judges suggested that denying the NCAA’s appeal might allow a lower court to gather a more robust record through testimony and evidence, which the Sixth Circuit could later review. Downton countered that such a path risks leaving Pavia and similar athletes without clarity. According to Sportico, he pointed to the looming NCAA transfer portal deadlines and the 2026 NFL Draft as pivotal decision points that could force Pavia to choose between continuing college football or pursuing a professional career before the courts provide guidance.

    Downton urged the judges to reject the NCAA’s appeal on substantive grounds rather than dismissing it for mootness.

    Source: Sportico