TLDR: I don't think Ziegler will be successful.
My thoughts: The best way to predict what is going to happen is to look at precedent. The house settlement case is important because it gave uncompensated players the right to seek relief, but it doesn't provide much in terms of a direct analysis of the core issues in the Ziegler case. In Ziegler, he is relying on the same legal theories as Pavia and Ozuna - namely, the Sherman Act (antitrust/anticompetition). So, the best way to predict the result is to look at what the judges did in those cases and their analysis. Pavia and Ozuna filed claims under the Sherman Act, claiming the JUCO rules were unfair. I'll break down my understanding and the result of each case. Pavia was decided first, then Ozuna followed.
Pavia - This case was filed in the Middle District of Tennessee (this is important) (Vandy lawyers). Pavia's case was essentially a case of first impression given the facts at issue. Pavia argued that the JUCO eligibility rule violated the Sherman Act because players at Prep Schools (basically the same thing as a JUCO in all respects but with a different name) were not penalized a year of NCAA eligibility for playing, whereas JUCO players lost a year of eligibility for playing. The NCAA could not justify the distinction or why the eligibility rule applied differently to JUCOs and Prep Schools when they play each other. On this narrow issue, the Court ruled in favor of Pavia.
Ozuna - This case was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee (this is important) (UT lawyers - no shade). This case was decided after the Pavia decision. The facts were nearly identical to Pavia. Interestingly, Ozuna's lawyers raised the same arguments as Pavia but the judge didn't consider them for some reason. Instead, the main argument was unfair competition because (1) penalizing JUCOs dissuades players from attending them; (2) creates a disadvantage for JUCOs in recruitment; and (3) generates downstream effects that harm consumers. The court seemed only to care about the third argument. Ozuna is far more valuable than the freshman who would come in and take his place. For the first argument, Ozuna hired an economic expert who opined that the eligibility issue induces players to attend D1 universities instead of JUCOs. The Court didn't buy Ozuna's argument because players can attend JUCOs over D1 universities for a plethora of reasons outside of just eligibility issues. For the second argument, the court held that Ozuna did not present enough evidence that the disadvantages rose to the level of "substantial" - i.e., Ozuna's economic expert didn't do enough to sway the judge. For the third argument, the court mentioned the Pavia decision in that the Pavia court held that Pavia met his burden, but the court again did not think Ozuna's expert's testimony was enough.
Ziegler - Unfortunately for Ziegler, his case was filed in the same district as Ozuna, where there is bad precedent in favor of the NCAA. The Ziegler court is not required to follow the Ozuna decision/analysis (it is persuasive authority and not binding), but federal courts in the same district tend to lend a lot of weight to prior decisions out of the same district. What I am getting at is the NCAA has a win in the same court where Ziegler's case is filed. On the merits, Ziegler is arguing antitrust under the Sherman Act based on the redshirt/five-year eligibility rule. So, while under the same act in Pavia and Ozuna, the legal theory is different. Thus, Ziegler does not have the golden goose Pavia argument available that the JUCO/Prep School eligibility rule is unfair. Ziegler argues that the redshirt/five-year eligibility rule is anticompetitive because, amongst other things, it is unfairly applied to athletes. Ziegler played all four years and is arguing it is unfair because some players get to stay 5 years and reap the NIL value of 5 years. And schools/players can choose to take a year or more without play and still play 4 years with a total school attendance of 5 years or more (if injured). I think this argument will fail. Based on Pavia and Ozuna, it appears that the courts are looking for minute exceptions where the NCAA's eligibility rules are patently unfair and without justification. The NCAA's purpose is to get players to graduate from college and ensure each player gets 4 fair years of playing time. They will justify the redshirt rule, saying that not all players are created equally and some require a developmental year. To keep it fair, the rule is that the player cannot really compete during the developmental year. Further, unlike the eligibility situation with JUCOs, the NCAA does not make the decision on what players are redshirted. The schools/players make those decisions, and it is completely at their discretion. The NCAA does not control NIL values or what the players get paid. Again, that is at the discretion of the schools, collectives, players, and third parties. On its face, this is not unfair. Ziegler could have chosen to redshirt or take a gap year like everyone else if he wanted, and the NCAA did not stop him from doing that. I imagine that Ziegler is going to argue that the NCAA is considering changing the rule completely to make it 5 years of eligibility for everyone. To me, that is a red herring. Just because the NCAA is considering changing the rule does not mean the rule right now is flawed or unfair as is. I don't think the court will lend much weight to that argument. In sum, I don't see Ziegler winning this one.
Disclaimer: I do not practice this area of law and am nowhere near an expert in this area. There are people far more qualified to render opinions on these issues. These are just my thoughts based on what I have read.
My thoughts: The best way to predict what is going to happen is to look at precedent. The house settlement case is important because it gave uncompensated players the right to seek relief, but it doesn't provide much in terms of a direct analysis of the core issues in the Ziegler case. In Ziegler, he is relying on the same legal theories as Pavia and Ozuna - namely, the Sherman Act (antitrust/anticompetition). So, the best way to predict the result is to look at what the judges did in those cases and their analysis. Pavia and Ozuna filed claims under the Sherman Act, claiming the JUCO rules were unfair. I'll break down my understanding and the result of each case. Pavia was decided first, then Ozuna followed.
Pavia - This case was filed in the Middle District of Tennessee (this is important) (Vandy lawyers). Pavia's case was essentially a case of first impression given the facts at issue. Pavia argued that the JUCO eligibility rule violated the Sherman Act because players at Prep Schools (basically the same thing as a JUCO in all respects but with a different name) were not penalized a year of NCAA eligibility for playing, whereas JUCO players lost a year of eligibility for playing. The NCAA could not justify the distinction or why the eligibility rule applied differently to JUCOs and Prep Schools when they play each other. On this narrow issue, the Court ruled in favor of Pavia.
Ozuna - This case was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee (this is important) (UT lawyers - no shade). This case was decided after the Pavia decision. The facts were nearly identical to Pavia. Interestingly, Ozuna's lawyers raised the same arguments as Pavia but the judge didn't consider them for some reason. Instead, the main argument was unfair competition because (1) penalizing JUCOs dissuades players from attending them; (2) creates a disadvantage for JUCOs in recruitment; and (3) generates downstream effects that harm consumers. The court seemed only to care about the third argument. Ozuna is far more valuable than the freshman who would come in and take his place. For the first argument, Ozuna hired an economic expert who opined that the eligibility issue induces players to attend D1 universities instead of JUCOs. The Court didn't buy Ozuna's argument because players can attend JUCOs over D1 universities for a plethora of reasons outside of just eligibility issues. For the second argument, the court held that Ozuna did not present enough evidence that the disadvantages rose to the level of "substantial" - i.e., Ozuna's economic expert didn't do enough to sway the judge. For the third argument, the court mentioned the Pavia decision in that the Pavia court held that Pavia met his burden, but the court again did not think Ozuna's expert's testimony was enough.
Ziegler - Unfortunately for Ziegler, his case was filed in the same district as Ozuna, where there is bad precedent in favor of the NCAA. The Ziegler court is not required to follow the Ozuna decision/analysis (it is persuasive authority and not binding), but federal courts in the same district tend to lend a lot of weight to prior decisions out of the same district. What I am getting at is the NCAA has a win in the same court where Ziegler's case is filed. On the merits, Ziegler is arguing antitrust under the Sherman Act based on the redshirt/five-year eligibility rule. So, while under the same act in Pavia and Ozuna, the legal theory is different. Thus, Ziegler does not have the golden goose Pavia argument available that the JUCO/Prep School eligibility rule is unfair. Ziegler argues that the redshirt/five-year eligibility rule is anticompetitive because, amongst other things, it is unfairly applied to athletes. Ziegler played all four years and is arguing it is unfair because some players get to stay 5 years and reap the NIL value of 5 years. And schools/players can choose to take a year or more without play and still play 4 years with a total school attendance of 5 years or more (if injured). I think this argument will fail. Based on Pavia and Ozuna, it appears that the courts are looking for minute exceptions where the NCAA's eligibility rules are patently unfair and without justification. The NCAA's purpose is to get players to graduate from college and ensure each player gets 4 fair years of playing time. They will justify the redshirt rule, saying that not all players are created equally and some require a developmental year. To keep it fair, the rule is that the player cannot really compete during the developmental year. Further, unlike the eligibility situation with JUCOs, the NCAA does not make the decision on what players are redshirted. The schools/players make those decisions, and it is completely at their discretion. The NCAA does not control NIL values or what the players get paid. Again, that is at the discretion of the schools, collectives, players, and third parties. On its face, this is not unfair. Ziegler could have chosen to redshirt or take a gap year like everyone else if he wanted, and the NCAA did not stop him from doing that. I imagine that Ziegler is going to argue that the NCAA is considering changing the rule completely to make it 5 years of eligibility for everyone. To me, that is a red herring. Just because the NCAA is considering changing the rule does not mean the rule right now is flawed or unfair as is. I don't think the court will lend much weight to that argument. In sum, I don't see Ziegler winning this one.
Disclaimer: I do not practice this area of law and am nowhere near an expert in this area. There are people far more qualified to render opinions on these issues. These are just my thoughts based on what I have read.
Last edited:
