Zakai Zeigler lawyers: New Tennessee law prevents NCAA from keeping Vols player off court

Yahoo

a day ago

Attorneys for former Tennessee basketball player Zakai Zeigler are trying to utilize a new state law curtailing the NCAA's authority to get him an additional year of eligibility.
It's the latest twist in Zeigler's federal lawsuit against the NCAA, which challenges the so-called "Four Seasons" rule. The NCAA allows athletes to play four seasons during a five-year period, which can include a redshirt year.
Zeigler ran out of NCAA eligibility by playing the past four seasons for UT basketball and not taking a redshirt. He wants to play a fifth season and earn millions of dollars in NIL pay. His attorneys say the NCAA does not have the authority in the state of Tennessee to stop him.
The new Tennessee law, Senate Bill 536, allows Tennessee universities and athletes to opt out of NCAA rules if they appear to violate antitrust law. The initial purpose was to shift liability toward the NCAA and conferences and away from the schools in anticipated antitrust lawsuits by athletes unhappy with new player-pay rules in college sports.
But broad language in the law – which has not been litigated in any court – strips the NCAA of its power if the association prohibits a Tennessee athlete from earning money. Zeigler's attorneys are seizing on that portion to push for a preliminary injunction that would grant him a fifth year of eligibility.
'(The new Tennessee law is) unambiguously clear: Any NCAA action that impacts an athlete's ability to earn NIL compensation or his or her eligibility, like the Four-Seasons Rule, is illegal in Tennessee,' Zeigler's attorneys argued in a brief filed to the Eastern District of Tennessee federal court on June 7.
The NCAA countered, accusing Zeigler of exploiting a law that doesn't apply to his case.
'(Zeigler's brief) continues his effort to dismantle the NCAA membership's longstanding eligibility rules by any means necessary — this time through a tortured reading of an irrelevant law,' NCAA attorneys wrote in a brief to the court on June 8.
'Common sense dictates that the new Tennessee statute has nothing to do with this case.'
The law appeared to be in response to Tennessee v. NCAA, a separate federal lawsuit that challenged the NCAA's rules that prohibited schools from facilitating NIL negotiations with players and recruits.
Tennessee and the NCAA reached a settlement in that case in January, the same month that Senate Bill 536 was introduced in the legislature. The new law was signed by Gov. Bill Lee on May 1, and it sparked a fight between UT and power conferences about whether the school had to follow new player-pay rules set forth in the House settlement.
However, a provision in the new law said the NCAA shall not 'interfere with, prohibit, restrict, or otherwise adversely affect an intercollegiate athlete's ability to earn compensation … and shall not otherwise impact an intercollegiate athlete's eligibility or full participation in intercollegiate athletic events.'
Zeigler has used that language in his fight against the NCAA. Federal Judge Katherine Crytzer could invalidate the state law altogether if she wants.
Zeigler has a guaranteed spot on Tennessee's 2025-26 basketball roster if Crytzer allows it. The latest hearing was held in Knoxville on June 6, and both sides are jockeying for a stronger position.
Zeigler's attorney, Alex Little, told the judge that Zeigler intends to play for the Vols and was told he had a spot on the team. But Little also said the NCAA wouldn't be able to restrict Zeigler's entrance into the transfer portal, presumably meaning if his injunction request was approved, Zeigler would have the option to play at another school, not just UT.
The NCAA argues that its eligibility rules are clear, and Zeigler cannot exceed them. But Zeigler's attorneys say that the law allows UT to determine who plays on its teams, not the NCAA.
'(The NCAA) argued that the phrase 'can . . . participate' means that Mr. Zeigler must be eligible to participate under its own eligibility rules,' Zeigler's attorneys argued in a brief. 'But this argument assumes its own premise: that the NCAA — rather than the institution — determines who gets to 'participate in an athletic program (at an institution).''
The NCAA sees a contradiction in UT's apparent support of Zeigler and its acceptance of NCAA eligibility rules. After all, member schools like UT make up the NCAA and adopt its rules.
The House settlement, which resolved three federal antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA and four power conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC), could strengthen the NCAA's position in the Zeigler case. The settlement was approved on June 6, just hours after the conclusion of Zeigler's hearing, and reinforced eligibility rules.
The House settlement permitted the NCAA and conferences to cap the number of years an athlete is eligible to receive payments at four years plus a redshirt year, providing that all four of those seasons must be played within a consecutive five-year period.
The SEC, which includes UT as a member, agreed to that settlement.
'The State's flagship institution (which happens to be the school Plaintiff attended) is a member of an athletic conference that has agreed to a settlement that expressly affirms the NCAA's Four-Seasons Rule,' NCAA attorneys argued in a brief. 'That same institution, the University of Tennessee, obtained valuable legal releases pursuant to that settlement and unsurprisingly has repeatedly endorsed it.
'It is accordingly hard to imagine the Tennessee legislature passing a law so obviously at odds with the University of Tennessee's legal position and interests.'
Adam Sparks is the Tennessee football beat reporter. Email [e-mail]. X, formerly known as Twitter@AdamSparks. Support strong local journalism by subscribing at knoxnews.com/subscribe.
Get the latest news and insight on SEC football by subscribing to the SEC Unfiltered newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox.
This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Zakai Zeigler lawyers: Tennessee law supersedes NCAA eligibility rule