Diego Pavia Heisman Trophy Quest Set Up by Historic Legal Victory

It’s safe to say that Vanderbilt quarterback and former JUCO transfer Diego Pavia is one of the most consequential college football players of the modern era.

The 24-year-old has led the 10th-ranked Commodores to a 6-1 record, including wins over SEC rivals South Carolina and LSU; the team is readying to play No. 15 Missouri on Saturday; and ESPN’s College GameDay is heading to Nashville for the game. Pavia is also a leading candidate for the 2026 Heisman Trophy, with stats that seem out of a video game: a 165.2 QB rating, with 15 touchdown passes against four interceptions, along with four rushing TDs.

Meanwhile, Pavia is litigating—and thus far, winning—an antitrust case to remain eligible past his NCAA eligibility limit. 

“Without hyperbole, we’ve changed the course of Diego Pavia’s life and the trajectory of Vanderbilt football,” said Pavia’s attorney, Ryan Downton of the Texas Law Group.

Pavia v. NCAA could lead to broader trajectory changes for college athletes, including having relatively older and more experienced players remain as graduate student athletes while earning, in some cases, millions of dollars a year through NIL.

Now in his sixth season of college football, Pavia has challenged the NCAA’s policy of limiting eligibility to four seasons of intercollegiate competition, including JUCO and D-II play, within a five-year period. He played his first two seasons at JUCO New Mexico Military Institute and the last four at New Mexico State and Vanderbilt.

Last December, U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell Jr. granted Pavia a preliminary injunction to play this fall. Shortly thereafter, the NCAA granted Pavia and similarly situated athletes a one-time waiver for the 2025-26 academic year. Pavia’s success has sparked dozens of lawsuits across the country by similarly seasoned athletes who want to keep competing in college. These cases have come to be known as “Pavia lawsuits.”

The gist of Pavia’s legal case is that, like other D-I football players, he is part of a labor market that sells its football services to schools. A cap on how long he and others like him can play harms that market. Antitrust law applies, because the rules are not collectively bargained with a union, and the NCAA—including its member institutions—enjoys monopoly control over the labor market. That means when there is a cap on how long a college athlete can play, develop skills and earn money, that cap could be construed as price-fixing.

Although college football players aren’t (yet) recognized as employees, and although they’re full-time students, they share commercial attributes with NFL players. College football players can sign NIL deals that, like endorsement deals for pro athletes, are supposed to reflect the commercial use of marketable attributes. They can also share in revenue through the House settlement, with colleges (similar to NFL teams) directly paying the players.

Some college football players have good reasons to remain eligible for as long as possible. Pavia is a good example—he is reportedly earning millions of dollars a year as a college star playing for a power conference school, and he recently said he turned down offers of as much as $4.5 million to transfer. Pavia stands 6-feet even, not tall for an NFL quarterback, who average around 6-foot-3. It’s not irrational to conclude that Pavia could earn more in college than in the NFL, or that he could remain a dominant—and highly marketable—power conference quarterback for years to come.

The NCAA has raised several arguments against Pavia. One is that antitrust law should not apply, since antitrust law concerns commercial restraints, whereas eligibility rules arguably concern a non-commercial matter: how long a college student can play a sport. Another defense argument is that, even if antitrust law applies, the five-year rule is reasonable. It is based on the idea that a college athlete should play about as long as a typical college student remains at a school. That framework, the NCAA has insisted, ensures roster spots turn over to incoming freshmen or transfers, and helps to distinguish college sports from pro sports. Campbell wasn’t persuaded by these arguments, and, on account of mootness, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently refused to disturb Campbell’s decision.

If Pavia wins the Heisman Trophy in December, he wouldn’t be the oldest player to do so. That would be Chris Weinke, whose name has appeared in Pavia v. NCAA court filings and who won the Heisman Trophy in 2000 at age 28. (Weinke joined Florida State after a six-year pro baseball career.)

Interestingly, the NCAA now allows former G League players—who are unionized employees—to play men’s college basketball. It stands to reason that other former pros in different sports with remaining eligibility might pursue the same goal, especially with the appeal of NIL deals and House revenue-sharing money. The line between college sports—at least at the power conference level—and pro sports appears to be fraying and, thus far, hasn’t deterred college fans from following their favorite teams.

Pavia would need another injunction to play for the Commodores, or for another Division I team, in 2026. Especially with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit siding with the NCAA in a similar case brought by Wisconsin cornerback Nyzier Fourqurean, Pavia’s case could eventually generate a “circuit split”—that is, a situation in which federal circuit courts reach conflicting conclusions of law about the same issue. Such a split can attract the interest of the U.S. Supreme Court. Absent SCOTUS intervention, similarly situated litigants in different federal circuits would effectively have different rights. Alternatively, Pavia could declare for the 2026 NFL draft.

Downton, Pavia’s attorney, met Pavia at the Vanderbilt-Texas game last November, which he says set off the chain of events. “If we didn’t have breakfast Sunday morning, the lawsuit would never have been filed in time for Diego to play this season. If he doesn’t play, Vanderbilt isn’t in the Top 10, and Diego doesn’t have a chance to win the Heisman.”

Whatever happens next, Downton is grateful for the opportunity to seek justice for his client. “Diego’s case has been a reminder to me that God has a plan,” the attorney said, “and you can’t always see it until you look in the rearview mirror.”