ACE and six other higher education associations filed an amicus brief March 28 in Pavia v. NCAA, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to reverse a lower court decision that threatens to upend how intercollegiate athletics are governed.At the heart of the case is a ruling from a federal district court in Tennessee that allows Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia to play a sixth season of college football, despite existing NCAA rules limiting participation to five calendar years and four seasons of competition. The court reasoned that because student-athletes now can earn money through name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals, the NCAA’s eligibility rules should be considered “commercial” and thus subject to federal antitrust scrutiny.
That logic, the associations argue, ignores both the purpose and the structure of these rules. NCAA eligibility standards have been in place for nearly a century, and they apply to all athletes—not just the few with NIL potential. They are designed to ensure that student-athletes are also students, making satisfactory academic progress and completing their degrees within a reasonable timeframe.
“If affirmed,” the brief warns, “the court’s injunction jeopardizes the NCAA’s ability to meaningfully set and enforce nationwide eligibility rules for intercollegiate athletics.” The concern isn’t limited to this one case. A decision treating eligibility standards as commercial could lead to a wave of lawsuits from student-athletes who are ineligible for any reason—GPA, course progress, or time limits—each arguing that their NIL opportunities were unfairly restricted.
The brief also underscores that eligibility rules align with higher education’s shared governance principles. They are crafted by college and university representatives—including presidents, chancellors, athletics directors, and faculty—through the NCAA’s member-driven governance process. These standards are deliberately aligned with the educational mission of higher education and reflect the values of the institutions that created them.
Treating eligibility rules as commercial policy, rather than educational policy, risks inviting federal courts into the heart of campus decision-making. The brief calls this “an invitation for courts to micromanage all aspects of intercollegiate athletics,” a shift that could erode long-standing norms of institutional shared governance.
Read the full brief here.