NCAA Argues NIL Lawsuit Will 'Invite Chaos' Into College Sports On A Moments Notice, Battle Intensifies

KNOXVILLE, Tenn-  The NCAA had until Saturday night to respond to a lawsuit brought forth by the State of Tennessee and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Turns out, their argument for why a temporary restraining order should not be granted by a judge relied heavily on the notion that it would ‘invite chaos’ into an already chaotic situation revolving around NIL. 

A 25-page response to the lawsuit was entered into court on Saturday night before the 6pm ET deadline in the U.S. District Court of Eastern Tennessee. The lawsuit that was filed this past week by both states has been a major talking this week around the college athletics world, mainly for how this could impact the way NIL is legally used in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes. 

The antitrust lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of both Tennessee and Virginia is a potential landmark case, which is challenging the rules of how NIL is used in college athletics. At the moment, NIL cannot be used to entice a recruit to attend a school, or even conversations of potential NIL payments if a player were to sign with a school. 

In the eyes of the NCAA, this is an inducement to sign, also known as 'pay-for-play, which has been a point of concern in this new era of college athletics. What the NCAA is seemingly overlooking is that the rules establish when NIL was first introduced were so basic that schools felt the guidelines were seemingly waiting to be broken. 

The lawsuit makes it clear that they want the NCAA to stay out of the athletes' way when it comes to making money though NIL. The complaint also notes that the NCAA is not allowing the athletes to profit in a market that includes the transfer portal.

"By restricting NIL discussions for prospective college athletes, the NCAA’s current policy restricts schools from competing to arrange NIL compensation for prospective college athletes and suppresses athletes’ NIL compensation by deterring the free movement of labor," the antitrust lawsuit read. 

The state of Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the NCAA regarding alleged NIL violations by the University of Tennessee.

NCAA Responds To Antitrust Lawsuit By Emphasizing On Potential ‘Chaos’

In their response to the lawsuit, NCAA lawyers made it clear that granting a temporary restraining order and opening up pandora's box when it comes to using NIL as an inducement to sign a recruit would cause chaos on a ‘moments notice’. 

"There is no reason to upend this process, invite chaos on a moment’s notice, and transform college sports into an environment where players and schools match up based primarily on the dollars that can change hands," the NCAA argued. 

Clearly the NCAA is afraid of something that is already happening around college athletics, especially in what is being called ‘free agency’ by coaches around most sports. 

"The NCAA rules Plaintiffs challenge are, and have long been, the status quo. Plaintiffs are the ones seeking to upend those rules, but they have done nothing to tailor their request to the harms asserted. Plaintiffs’ request to enjoin specific NCAA rules is underdeveloped, underthought, and underexplained," the NCAA noted in its response. 

Also at the forefront of the current argument over NIL and how it's used in college athletics is the close standard it comes to in-regards how NIL contracts could be defined as ‘employment-like relationships’ with schools. 

"Allowing institutions and associated groups to enter NIL deals with prospective student-athletes risks moving toward an employment-like relationship between the institution and its student-athletes, a dynamic that many student-athletes do not want and that may carry negative impacts for student athletes," NCAA lawyers argued. 

Furthermore, the NCAA argued that if the court ruled in the favor of the plaintiffs, recruiting inducements would only intensify. One of the points made by lawyers from the NCAA center around how this ruling could lead to recruits being enticed by ‘bad actors’ that would entice recruits into ‘coercive contracts’ that would only harm them going forward. 

"The requested injunction would facilitate, inter alia, recruiting inducements tantamount to pay for athletic performance; adulteration of a recruiting process aimed at allowing student-athletes to choose the schools and programs at which they best fit; exposing recruits to bad actors who cajole the recruits (many of whom are minors) into entering coercive contracts; and third parties overwhelming recruits with solicitations."

What's Next For Both States And NCAA?

Now that the NCAA has filed its response to the antitrust lawsuit, the State of Tennessee and Commonwealth of Virginia have until Sunday night at 6pm ET to respond. Once both sides have entered their respective responses to the lawsuit, a judge will then determine whether or not to rule on the TRO, or insert a preliminary injunction. 

A hearing has been set for Feburary 13th in Greenevile, Tennessee. At that point, both sides will argue their case on the temporary aspect, with this case potentially playing-out for a while. 

Continue following OutKick and Trey Wallace as this case unfolds, which could lead to a massive shift in how NIL is used in college athletics.