Quote:A federal judge in Tennessee granted a preliminary injunction, suspending NCAA rules regarding name, image and likeness benefits for athletes and indirectly easing the stress for University of Tennessee amid an NCAA investigation.

It’s a victory for the attorneys general in Tennessee and Virginia in their lawsuit against the NCAA and, potentially, for UT in its fierce fight with the NCAA over NIL rules.

The injunction was granted in the Eastern Tennessee District by Judge Clifton Corker, who found that NIL rules caused irreparable damage to athletes.

"In an apparent attempt to prohibit those (recruiting) inducements, the NCAA issued guidance classifying NIL collectives as 'boosters' to prevent them from negotiating with student-athletes during the recruiting and transfer processes," Corker said in his decision. "The NCAA's prohibition likely violates federal antitrust law and harms student-athletes.

"Accordingly, (plaintiffs) are entitled to a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the NCAA's 'NIL-recruiting ban.'"

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti celebrated the initial win.

"The court's grant of a preliminary injunction against the NCAA’s illegal NIL-recruitment ban ensures the rights of student-athletes will be protected for the duration of this case, but the bigger fight continues," Skrmetti said in a statement. "We will litigate this case to the fullest extent necessary to ensure the NCAA's monopoly cannot continue to harm Tennessee student-athletes. The NCAA is not above the law, and the law is on our side."

The states argued that NIL rules must be suspended immediately because recruits are losing leverage without the ability to negotiate their fair market value in the NIL space and that UT's reputation is stained by the NCAA's unfair investigation focused on NIL rules enforcement.

“If UT is punished with bowl bans or players sitting out games, that is irreparable harm. But the threat of irreparable harm is also harm," Cam Norris, a lawyer arguing on the states, told the judge during the preliminary injunction hearing on Feb. 13.

The decision could have a seismic impact on college sports, as the NCAA's rules banning NIL recruiting inducements are frozen for more than 523,000 athletes at 1,088 institutions.

College recruits and transfers can now negotiate and sign NIL contracts before enrolling at a university with no fear of breaking NCAA rules. Or, at least, they can until the case concludes, likely months from now.

But considering the NCAA already was under scrutiny involving antitrust laws, some NIL rules could be off the books permanently.

What it means for NCAA investigation into University of Tennessee football
This federal case and the NCAA’s investigation into UT aren’t directly connected, but the prior impacts the latter.

With the injunction, the NCAA will have a difficult time enforcing the most serious charges regarding NIL. After all, it would be attempting to punish a school for breaking rules in the past that are unenforceable and potentially illegal in the present.

“Considering the evidence currently before the court, plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim under the Sherman Act (antitrust),” Judge Clifton Corker wrote in his opinion in a denied temporary restraining order on Feb. 6.

The NCAA is investigating allegations that UT broke NIL rules in multiple sports, including football, Knox News has learned. But the university has not received a Notice of Allegations, so there’s an opportunity for the NCAA to back off after this ruling.

But charging UT with breaking NIL rules may not be the NCAA's only option. It could try to reinterpret alleged violations as breaking rules regarding only boosters, even if those boosters were acting on behalf of an NIL collective.

If so, the NCAA investigation into UT could get murky despite clarity in the federal lawsuit over NIL.

Either way, the ball is now in the NCAA’s court about whether it wants to pursue its investigation into UT and to attempt to preserve its NIL rules in the federal suit. Those decisions are separate but related because they deal with NIL rules.

https://www.knoxnews.com/story/sports/co...535104007/

College sports were great...gonna miss it.

From D1 Ticker:

NCAA President Charlie Baker reacted to the NIL decision in Tennessee yesterday: “You’re talking about 95 percent of colleges that probably spend somewhere between ... $40 million and $5 million on college sports, and they lose money. They don’t have TV contracts and nobody can look at their income statements or balance sheets and conclude there would be a way for them to make money. [...] I think in the end, we are going to need Congress to do something. Because people will draw a lot of conclusions from court decisions. And then there will be new ones. [...] I think the most important thing here is let's deal with some of the issues around accountability and transparency and consumer protections first. And if we then want to have a conversation about other stuff, about how this should all work, especially if we get to the point where we give schools the ability to do more in this space, I'm all-in on that.”

Outkick’s Chat Withrow asked Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti if he was ready to help reform all of college sports, now that he defeated the NCAA on NIL in his home state. Skrmetti: “We’re happy to talk with them if they want to start talking about ways to resolve this in the short run or the long run. We’re happy to keep litigating if that’s what it takes. We like our chances. But whatever happens, we are going to continue fighting to make sure that student-athletes have fair and clear rules that are going to let them enjoy the benefits of the sports that bring so much joy to everybody.

Some key notes from Sportico’s Michael McCann: “Unless the NCAA successfully appeals the trial judge’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the injunction will remain in place for months—or possibly longer—depending on when a trial is held for Tennessee & Virginia v. NCAA. The order also restrains the NCAA from enforcing its Rule of Restitution (NCAA Bylaw 12.11.4.2) as applied to NIL activities. Under the rule, the NCAA can retroactively impose punishments if a player competes based on an injunction that is later vacated. By taking the Rule of Restitution off the boards, (Judge) Corker ensures (unless and until he is reversed by the Sixth Circuit) that athletes and schools relying on his order won’t later suffer a penalty if his injunction against the NIL-recruiting ban.”

Kennyhertz Perry attorney Mit Winter to On3’s Pete Nakos: “I’m assuming the NCAA is going to do the same thing it did in the transfer rules case and say, ‘We’re not going to enforce our NIL rule anywhere.’ So, we’ll have no transfer rules or NIL rules in recruiting. What are collectives going to do now? They’re unleashed. This was already happening before. But now they’re going to do it without any fear of punishment. It will be interesting to see what rules the schools could have. They’re already involved with a lot of collectives as well, but this will just increase that involvement. Telling collectives what they want them to do and how much to offer. What is the recruiting process going to look like in the next few months?”

How can the NCAA enforce any rules about eligibility because if they do so they are restricting a player from earning NIL money...

as long as a player is in college will the 4 year rule hold up?