NiJaree Canady, a 22-year-old African American softball phenom, has become the first college softball player to sign a Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deal worth more than $1 million, a historic moment in collegiate sports.

The former Stanford ace transferred to Texas Tech, where she secured a groundbreaking $1,050,024 one-year contract through the Matador Club, an NIL collective affiliated with the university. The deal includes a $1 million direct payment, $50,000 for living expenses, and an additional $24 in honor of her jersey number.

According to BlackNews.com, Canady, who was named the 2024 USA Softball Collegiate Player of the Year, entered the transfer portal shortly before Texas Tech hired Coach Gerry Glasco. He acted quickly to bring her to Lubbock—with backing from NFL quarterback and Red Raider alum Patrick Mahomes—and offered her not just a starting role but an expanded opportunity to develop her offensive skills.

“The coaching staff and their vision were a major reason I made this decision,” Canady told ESPN. She described her transition from Stanford’s Palo Alto campus to West Texas as smooth, not- ing that the environment reminds her more of her hometown of Topeka, Kansas.

Excelled despite injury

USA Today noted that Canady’s impact on the field was immediate and unmatched. Despite suffering a minor injury, she helped lead Texas Tech to its first Big 12 regular-season and conference titles, finishing the season with a 26-5 record and a nation-leading ERA of 0.86.

She also threw a two-hit shutout with 10 strikeouts to deliver the program’s first-ever win at the Women’s College World Series. Coach Glasco called Canady the best pitcher he’s ever coached and said he believes she can lead Texas Tech to a national championship.

Her resume is as stacked as her fastball is deadly. In addition to her 2024 USA Softball Player of the Year honor, Canady received the Honda Sport Award, was a two-time Women’s College World Series All-Tournament Team selection and dominated at Stanford with a 41-10 record and a 0.67 ERA over two seasons.

She also represented Team USA in the 2024 Jaan All-Star Series.

Before college, Canady was a standout at Topeka High School, where she was a two-time Kansas Gatorade Player of the Year and led her team to back-to-back state championships. She graduated in 2022 and was ranked as the No. 11 softball recruit in the nation by Extra Innings Softball.

Off the field, she’s equally grounded—an academic All-American who enjoys reading and spending time with her dog.

She is the daughter of Bruce and Katherine Canady, and her brother Bruce Jr. plays football at Cal. Canady’s NIL deal not only sets a new benchmark for college softball but also signals a shift in opportunities for Black female athletes in a space that other demographics have long dominated.

“She’s changing the game—literally and financially,” Glasco said.

Zakai Zeigler has lost the first round of this fight against the NCAA.

PublishedJune 12, 2025 11:55 AM EDT•UpdatedJune 12, 2025 11:55 AM EDT

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Copy Link

After filing a lawsuit against the NCAA last month hoping for another year of eligibility, former Tennessee guard Zakai Zeigler was delivered some bad news by a judge in East Tennessee on Thursday morning. 

The lawsuit, which was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, challenged the NCAA’s ability to keep a player from participating for a fifth year, with NIL earnings being the main sticking point of Zeigler’s lawsuit against the organization. 

In the motion filed against the NCAA, Zakai Zeigler argued that the NCAA’s rules that allow players to only have four seasons of competition in a five-year window was an unlawful restraint of trade that falls within the state and federal laws pertaining to antitrust. 

During their argument for Zeigler to receive another year of eligibility, his lawyers made it a point to say that the former Tennessee guard could make upwards of $4 million next season, and that the NCAA was preventing him from cashing-in on his NIL. This again was argued as an antitrust violation, to which the judge did not see as a matter pertaining to this court. 

“The court is a court of law, not policy. What the NCAA should do as a policy matter to benefit student athletes is beyond the each of the Sherman Act and TIPA,” Judge Katherine Crytzer wrote in her ruling. 

“Further, Plaintiff has failed to show that the remaining preliminary injunction factors support an injunction. Plaintiff’s asserted harms, including loss of substantial NIL opportunities and to the NIL market, are more monetary in nature, and future money damages award might adequately redress them.”

There Could Be A Glimmer Of Hope For Zakai Zeigler, Others

While the judge did deny the injunction, there was a certain portion of her ruling that could present a path for Zeigler if they continued to push. 

The court discussed how the ‘Four Seasons’ rule was a factor in how the plaintiff presented their case, mentioning that Zeigler failed to present sufficient evidence that the Four-Seasons rule would produce ‘anti-competitive’ effects in the market for student-athlete services and NIL compensation in Division I basketball. 

But, there was a kicker from the judge, who cited the Alston case. 

“But the current market realities are fundamentally different, as Alston confirmed. Whether an antitrust violation exists necessarily depends on a careful analysis of market realities. If those market realities change, so may the legal analysis.” 

She is pretty much saying that if Zeigler’s lawyers present further evidence that he is actually being harmed by not being allowed to profit off NIL for a fifth year, there could be a change in the courts’ mindset. 

The judge also pointed out that with the number of roster spots that are currently available for athletes on a basketball team, the injunction would actually harm those who are currently enrolled and committed to a particular school, while also mentioning that it would hurt high school athletes in their recruitment.

“Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence showing that granting an injunction would serve the public interest,” Judge Crytzer wrote. 

This was always a half-court shot for Zakai Zeigler. But, the judge did present a different avenue for his team to take, if they could present further evidence. 

While the preliminary injunction wasn’t granted, the plaintiff has certainly not heard the final whistle yet. 

A federal judge on Thursday denied former University of Tennessee basketball star Zakai Zeigler a preliminary injunction that would have allowed the two-time SEC Defensive Player of the Year to play a fifth season as a graduate student in 2025-26.

U.S. District Judge Katherine A. Crytzer reasoned that while the NCAA’s eligibility rule allowing four seasons of intercollegiate competition within a five-year window is subject to antitrust scrutiny—the NCAA insisted it is not—Zeigler failed to show the rule is sufficiently problematic under antitrust law.

The main problem for Zeigler, as Crytzer saw it, is that the NCAA “does not control who receives NIL compensation” and thus Zeigler losing out on—he claims—up to $4 million in NIL deals does not show the NCAA is legally responsible. As the judge explained, NIL deals are between athletes and third parties, while the NCAA does not “enjoy the power to set [NIL] wages” in the labor market for college athletes.

Relatedly, Crytzer wrote, is that his exclusion from college basketball is not all that meaningful from an antitrust law perspective. 

“Plaintiff has not shown that defendant’s limit on the labor side of the market—replacing one Division I basketball player with another—produces substantial anticompetitive effects.”

The judge suggested that Zeigler’s case is more about the wisdom of rules that limit how long college athletes can play than the law about that topic.

“This Court is a court of law, not policy,” Crytzer wrote. “What the NCAA should do as a policy matter to benefit student athletes is beyond the reach” of the court.

Crytzer identified other problems in Zeigler’s motion for an injunction. One factor in whether to grant an injunction is if the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. Irreparable harm normally means a harm that monetary damages can’t later remedy. In the sports context, irreparable harm is sometimes argued in the context of an athlete excluded from playing in that the athlete will lose the chance to play in games that will never be played again and lose the opportunity to hone their skills.

Zeigler failed to offer a plausible explanation for how he would suffer irreparable harm, the judge concluded.

“Plaintiff’s asserted harms, including loss of substantial NIL opportunities and access to the NIL market,” Crytzer wrote, “are more monetary in nature, and a future money damages award might adequately redress them.”

Crytzer also worried that letting Zeigler play could pose unintended consequences for other athletes. If Zeigler could play a fifth season as a grad student, other players in his position could seek the same remedy, which would mean some incoming freshmen or incoming transfers lose their roster spots.

“Given the fixed number of roster spots available for each Division I basketball team,” the judge wrote, “an injunction would run the risk of harming (1) currently enrolled Division I basketball players who have already committed to a member institution and (2) current high school seniors who might have their college recruitment disrupted.”

Crytzer’s ruling is a win for the NCAA in terms of outcome. Had Zeigler won, numerous college seniors could seek to play a fifth season as a grad student. The NCAA also warned that there is “no limiting principle” in that a player could seek a sixth or additional seasons as a grad student, since Zeigler’s argument—that denial of NIL opportunities justifies an antitrust harm—could conceivably apply for many years. 

But the judge didn’t endorse the NCAA’s preferred rationale. The NCAA maintains that eligibility rules are non-commercial in nature since they concern a more academic or educational consideration: when a student is eligible to play sport. Antitrust law governs commercial matters, and thus the NCAA contends eligibility rules should fall outside antitrust scrutiny. 

Crytzer disagreed. She wrote that in the modern college sports world, college athletes “may receive compensation in exchange for their athletic services.” She added that “the nature and amount of that compensation” depends in part on whether a player is eligible to play.

Crytzer referenced U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granting final approval of the 10-year settlement between the NCAA, power conferences and current and former Division I athletes represented by the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations. The settlement will allow colleges to directly share revenue with athletes. To be clear, Crytzer clarified House is outside the scope of Zeigler v. NCAA and had no impact on her ruling. 

But Crytzer’s reference to the House settlement is a reminder that college athletes in power conference programs are morphing into a status that has some similarity to pro athletes, albeit with academic obligations. And it means the NCAA can anticipate other antitrust lawsuits over rules. The association has been besieged with antitrust lawsuits brought by athletes in their 20s who don’t want to leave college sports. Some are like Zeigler in that they’re college stars who can command millions in NIL (and perhaps soon in revenue-sharing) and whose schools would love to keep them around long-term as grad students who aren’t quite good enough (or in the case of the 5-foot-9 Zeigler, tall enough) for the NBA or NFL. Their chance to make money is in college sports, and they don’t want to leave. 

Thursday’s ruling doesn’t end Zeigler’s case. He can continue to litigate and hope to eventually win a trial where he would be awarded damages. Zeigler can also appeal Crytzer’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Absent intervention by the appellate court, Zeigler will remain a former, rather than active, Vols player.

Entering the NCAA Tournament Selection Show, the Virginia Tech softball team was on the bubble as to whether or not the Hokies would be hosting the first weekend as a Top 16 National Seed. After the 64-team field was announced on May 11, Tech was snubbed for one of the final Top 16 seeds and had to hit the road to Alabama for the Tuscaloosa Regional.

After splitting the two regular-season games with the Crimson Tide, Virginia Tech dropped both meetings that weekend in Alabama and were eliminated short of the Super Regionals. The loss ended the Hokies’ season at 43-13 and well short of their preseason goal of making it to Oklahoma City for the College World Series.

Virginia Tech softball receives a final Top 20 ranking from D1 Softball

After Texas beat Texas Tech in three games to win the National Championship last week, D1 Softball released their final Top 25 rankings for the season, and Virginia Tech dropped five spots from their pre-NCAA Tournament ranking to finish at No. 20.

Truth be told, the Hokies were in the situation they were in for seeding in the NCAA Tournament because of a couple of hiccups they had. The first one was in April when they dropped two out of three at Pittsburgh, then in the semifinals of the ACC Tournament at Boston College, they held a 9-2 lead in the bottom of the sixth before Clemson rallied with eight runs in the pouring rain to pickup a stunning 10-9 victory.

That game should not have been used for NCAA Tournament seeding purposes, as it was unfair to both teams to play in those conditions, something the ACC failed both schools with. Now, the Hokies will look back and wonder, what if? They will need to replace a lot of talent going into 2026, something that head coach Pete D’Amour is already doing.