Zakai Zeigler Loses Preliminary Injunction Against NCAA, The Fight Isn’t Over

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

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.