Breaking: Zakai Zeigler recently requested a preliminary injunction that would have allowed him to continue playing for a fifth year after he filed a complaint against the NCAA.

Here’s an in-depth exploration of Zakai Zeigler’s legal battle for a fifth year of NCAA eligibility—covering the origins of the case, legal arguments, NCAA’s defense, court’s ruling, reactions and implications, and what comes next. This deep dive is organized into clear sections to maintain readability—from background to broader collegiate athletics reform.

• Born August 2, 2002, in Long Island, New York, Zeigler is a 5′9″ point guard who starred at the University of Tennessee beginning in 2021
• Over four seasons, he appeared in 138 games (83 starts), averaging 11.3 points, 5.4 assists, 2.6 rebounds, and 1.8 steals. He notched a spot as a three-time All-SEC selection and SEC Defensive Player of the Year in 2024 and 2025
• Zeigler holds Tennessee’s career records in both assists (747) and steals (251)
• Recently graduated, he’s now pursuing graduate studies at Tennessee, yet faces a hard stop under the NCAA’s “Four‑Seasons Rule”—which limits athletes to four seasons of competition within five years
• The core issue: NCAA prohibits athletes who have played four seasons in five years (without redshirting) from adding a fifth year. Zeigler, having played all four years straight, is now barred
• His claim: The rule violates both federal antitrust laws (Sherman Act, Section 1) and Tennessee’s Trade Practices Act, making it an “unlawful restraint of trade.” His lawsuit seeks to establish that the NCAA’s limitations restrict competition in both athlete services and the NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) market
• NIL argument: According to analysis by Spyre Sports Group, Zeigler could have earned $2–4 million in NIL endorsements during a fifth season, compared to roughly $500,000 in 2024‑25 The crucial legal question: is that lost earning potential “irreparable harm”?
• Legal remedy sought: A preliminary injunction to let him play in the 2025‑26 season while the case proceeds
• Zeigler argues that allowing only redshirting athletes extra eligibility is arbitrary and unfair. The decision over a fifth year rests on the coach and institutional strategy—not necessarily the athlete’s academic or athletic standing
• His legal team positions this as a foundational antitrust case, one which could transform eligibility rules across collegiate sports if successful
• The NCAA maintains that Zeigler’s attempt would make him the first four-year Division I athlete to petition for a fifth season via court, rather than eligibility committeesIt warns that accepting Zeigler’s case could flood rosters: “20–25% of roster spots that would have gone to freshmen” would instead be occupied by overstay athletes
• The NCAA defends the Four‑Seasons Rule, saying it’s essential for maintaining the distinction between college and pro sports, while preserving justice for prospective athletes
• They point out that Zeigler knew the rule’s existence, as part of his decision to attend Tennessee, and could have challenged it earlier
• The NCAA argues it doesn’t directly cap NIL compensation, so identifying anticompetitive behavior is difficult
• At the preliminary hearing, the NCAA underscored that monetary losses could be offset by future damages, while roster disruption would constitute “irreparable harm” to other student-athletes .

On June 12, 2025, U.S. District Judge Katherine A. Crytzer denied Zeigler’s motion for a preliminary injunction

• Failure of the “likelihood of success” test: Zeigler did not sufficiently prove that the Four‑Seasons Rule imposes substantial antitrust effects
• Damage control: Judge Crytzer emphasized that monetary harm could be addressed with a future damages award.
• Roster integrity: Issuing an injunction risked displacing current athletes and incoming freshmen, which counts as irreparable harm
• Scope of court: The judge noted courts should not replace policy judgment—what’s beneficial for athletes may lie beyond statutory interpretation .
• Declaring disappointment, his team highlighted NCAA’s own statements admitting influence over NIL markets. They signaled intent to press ahead through further litigation .
• Diego Pavia (Vanderbilt QB) filed suit over junior college eligibility counting against NCAA clock; initially won but case is being appealed
• Nyzier Fourqurean (Wisconsin CB) succeeded with an injunction after citing NCAA’s appeal process lacking “meaningful exceptions,” indirectly setting NIL-related precedent
• Supreme Court ruling in NCAA v. Alston (2021) confirmed NCAA compensation rules face “rule-of-reason” antitrust review, paving the way for Zeigler’s argument NCAA is under pressure to craft a unified federal standard, as state-by-state variations complicate compliance
• Enacted or impending multi-billion-dollar settlements (like a proposed $2.8 billion) signal dramatic shifts in athlete compensation frameworks
• The evolving legal terrain suggests athletes may one day enjoy flexibility to extend college careers or even treat college as employment .
• NCAA proponents & rival fan base argue Zeigler’s career has peaked and he should move on—some social posts mockingly saying “Time for a JOB”
• Supporters see his case as catalyzing fairness by dismantling subjective waiver systems and establishing rule-based eligibility extensions
• Legal experts highlight flaws in NCAA’s data and lack of exceptions as undermining defenses .
• The Department of Justice’s input to the court showed they support evaluating eligibility rules under Alston’s antitrust principles
• Institutional waiver systems would shrink; athletes who complete degrees in four years could universally seek a fifth season.
• Rosters and recruiting dynamics could shift—more spots retained by current players instead of future freshman.
• NIL valuation would further escalate, especially for high-performing, experienced players.
• NCAA may reconsider definitions of amateurism and eligibility—or risk being overshadowed by federal legislation.
• The precedent for athlete-led legal eligibility extensions would remain limited, reinforcing NCAA’s compliance framework.
• Variation in waiver rulings would persist, perpetuating debates over fairness.
• The NCAA might continue navigating pressure to regulate NIL through policy rather than legal avenues.

1. Zeigler will pursue the case on its merits, aiming to prove anticompetitive effects of NCAA’s rules—even though the preliminary injunction failed.
2. Discovery phase: Both parties will seek data on NIL earnings, roster impacts, and NCAA decision-making processes.
3. Motion for summary judgment and/or trial: The case may eventually prompt either a judge-ruled summary decision or proceed to trial.
4. Appeals likely: Regardless of district court outcome, appeal through Sixth Circuit is expected.
5. Potential for broader rulings or settlements: Either via aggregated cases or congressional reform, eligibility and NIL rules may be reshaped.

Zakai Zeigler’s challenge is emblematic of a transformed collegiate sports landscape. It touches on:

• Athlete rights vs NCAA regulation, especially in NIL monetization
• Antitrust law application, influenced by the Alston precedent
• Systemic fairness, with questions about why some athletes get a fifth year (via redshirt) while others don’t
• Potential ripple effects, from recruiting to roster strategy, NIL markets, and possibly athlete employment models

Though the injunction request has been defeated, Zeigler’s fight is far from over. His case probes the heart of NCAA eligibility frameworks—and could trigger deep changes, with impacts felt across the industry.