A federal judge denied a requested temporary restraining order Tuesday, creating a speed bump for the states of Tennessee and Virginia in their quest to pause NCAA rules regarding name, image and likeness benefits for college athletes.
But Judge Clifton Corker also agreed with the states on several points, going as far as saying the case would ‘likely’ succeed on the merits under federal antitrust statutes and saying the rules in question ‘likely foster economic exploitation of student-athletes.’
The ruling leaves the current NIL rules in place for Wednesday, the start of the Division I football regular signing period, when recruits can sign a letter of intent with a university. The same judge will hear arguments for a lengthier preliminary injunction in a Greeneville courtroom Feb. 13.
That hearing could have seismic and long-term effects on college sports if the NCAA’s rules banning NIL recruiting inducements and pay-for-play deals are put on hold.
Tuesday’s order was issued in the Eastern Tennessee District of federal court in Greeneville, not far from the University of Tennessee, which is locked in a fierce fight with the NCAA over NIL rules.
A judge could grant after the Feb. 13 hearing a temporary injunction that would prohibit the NCAA from enforcing its NIL rules in Tennessee and Virginia until the lawsuit concludes. Ultimately, if the judge agrees with the attorneys general, it would spell the end of NCAA regulation of NIL in those states.
Tuesday’s decision has no bearing on whether the judge will agree to a temporary injunction or the case’s ultimate decision – legal experts caution against drawing conclusions from interim rulings like this one.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti interpreted Corker’s order as an indication of the suit’s ultimate success, despite the denial of the restraining order.
‘In today’s opinion, a federal judge said Tennessee and Virginia are likely to prevail in their antitrust suit against the NCAA,’ the attorney general’s office said in a news release. ‘Although the court declined to issue a temporary restraining order, the judge reasoned the NCAA can be held monetarily liable for any harms, thus negating the need for a (temporary restraining order).’
Previously, recruits could only sign NIL deals before enrolling in a university if their state laws permitted it. But the NCAA could view parts of those arrangements as recruiting inducements, which violates its rules.
That ambiguity remains, as does Tennessee’s place as the epicenter of a potential earthquake in college sports.
In a statement, the NCAA said these problems should be solved by member schools which adopt rules rather than in courtroom.
“The NCAA fully supports student-athletes profiting from their NIL rights, and the Association looks forward to discussing how member schools and conferences overwhelmingly support the current rules that prohibit tampering with student-athletes and unchecked recruiting contacts,’ the NCAA said. ‘There is ample opportunity for NCAA members to pursue rule changes through the policy-making process in which all 1,100 schools voluntarily participate.’
Judge wants Tennessee to show more
Corker agreed with the states on several points but also said ‘at this juncture’ they failed to prove there would be immediate, irreparable harm to student-athletes if the NIL rules remained intact.
To that end, failing to prove harm doomed the temporary restraining order.
Corker ruled the states failed to show there were likely to be anything other than monetary damages to athletes who operate under the NCAA’s NIL rules.
The judge appeared to be interested in the states’ arguments related to evidence that NIL rules ‘harms competition,’ and he said it is similar to a ban on competitive bidding that the Supreme Court found to be anti-competitive when it ruled against the NCAA in 2021.
How Tennessee became ground zero for fight against NCAA
The rejected restraining order was part of the antitrust lawsuit filed by Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, along with the state of Virginia, against the NCAA over its “NIL-recruiting ban.”
The suit is running parallel to the NCAA’s ongoing investigation into allegations that the University of Tennessee broke rules involving NIL of athletes.
The suit and the investigation are not directly linked. But the attorney general’s suit mentions the UT investigation as an example of the “unlawful restriction” of the NCAA’s NIL policy, and it immediately drew support from Gov. Bill Lee and other state officials.
An injunction from the court wouldn’t end the NCAA investigation into Tennessee athletics, but it would add a snag. The NCAA would then be trying to investigate and seek to punish the school over rules that it can not currently enforce.
In a declaration filed with Skrmetti’s original complaint, Tennessee athletic director Danny White encouraged the court to remove the NIL rules before signing day.
“After the February 7 regular signing period, these football players will not have any negotiating power and will be subject to marketing restraints at their selected schools … If schools were permitted to discuss NIL opportunities during the recruiting process, schools would be fiercely competing with other institutions to recruit the best athletes,’ he wrote.
Over the weekend the two sides exchanged fiery responses, with the NCAA, among other things, thumbing its nose at the state of Tennessee and saying the state failed to show the importance of a Feb. 7 deadline and failed to prove there would be irreparable harm to athletes.
The response pointed to the lone example given by Tennessee, Volunteers football player Jackson Lampley, who was not recruited during the NIL era but filed a declaration of his availability to testify.
The state’s reply was to the point.
‘The NCAA seemingly wants a testimonial from a current high schooler … That’s convenient, since the NCAA knows no current recruit would risk incurring the NCAA’s wrath by admitting he has (or would like to) violate its rules,” it said.