BREAKING: A Federal Judge in Tennessee Recently Denied Zakai Zeigler’s Request for a Preliminary Injunction that Would have Allowed him to Play a Fifth Feason While his Lawsuit Against the NCAA Progressed. Zeigler, Tennessee’s all‑time Leader in Assists (747) and steals (251), Sued the NCAA Under Antitrust Claims—Arguing the “Four‑Seasons Rule” is Harming his Ability to Earn up to $4 million in……

A federal judge in Tennessee has rejected Zakai Zeigler’s request for a preliminary injunction, which would have allowed him to continue playing while his antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA proceeds

Zeigler holds Tennessee’s career records in assists (747) and steals (251), and argued that the NCAA’s “Four‑Seasons Rule” could cost him $2–4 million in projected NIL earnings for the 2025–26 season. Judge Katherine Crytzer concluded Zeigler failed to demonstrate that the rule imposes a substantial anticompetitive effect in the student-athlete or NIL markets—citing that any monetary losses could be addressed through damages, which does not meet the legal requirement for irreparable harm

During the hearing, the court noted the fixed roster constraints in Division I basketball—granting the injunction could unfairly displace current team members or incoming recruits  Zeigler’s team expressed disappointment, stating the NCAA does influence NIL markets, pointing to recent legal settlements as proof

Zeigler, a three-time All-SEC selection and two-time SEC Defensive Player of the Year, graduated and is set to begin graduate studies but will not play in 2025–26 unless the decision is overturned on appeal

⚖️ NCAA argues Zeigler would be first to play 5 DI seasons in 5 years

The NCAA’s legal response forced on record that Zeigler is seeking an unprecedented “fifth season as a matter of right”, setting a dangerous precedent for Division I eligibility

In filings before Judge Crytzer, the NCAA emphasized that its rules already allow redshirts, mission or military service, and other waivers—highlighted by Tennessee teammate Diego Pavia’s case—but said this doesn’t entitle all athletes to five full seasons  They warned that granting Zeigler’s request could eliminate 20–25% of roster slots, disadvantaging incoming freshmen

The NCAA also flagged that Zeigler has always known the “Four‑Seasons” limit since entering Tennessee, and could pursue professional or international play instead—arguing that the court should not use antitrust law to override established NCAA policies

The Department of Justice filed a brief backing Zeigler’s case, urging courts to apply the Alston “flexible rule-of-reason” analysis—reassessing whether limits like the Four-Seasons Rule still serve a pro‑competitive consumer interest

🎯 Legal context: NIL, antitrust, and Tennessee law in play

Zeigler filed his lawsuit on May 20 in the Eastern District of Tennessee. He claims the NCAA’s Four-Seasons Rule violates both the Sherman Act and Tennessee antitrust laws, asserting that without an injunction, he’ll lose out on $2–4 million in NIL deals—based on projections from Spyre Sports Group

The complaint points out contradictory NCAA rules—such as the redshirt policy, the 20% annual credit progress standard, and the six-year graduation window—which undermine the NCAA’s defense that four years are enough  Tennessee’s recently enacted Senate Bill 536 also strengthens Zeigler’s case by clarifying that NCAA regulations cannot adversely affect athletes’ compensation or eligibility

The lawsuit argues this case could reshape eligibility norms nationwide, prompting copycat lawsuits and legislative shifts in other states  Sports law firm Venable notes that a favorable outcome might compel a rebalancing of amateurism and NIL-era competition policies

Looking ahead

• Appeal expected: Zeigler’s legal team has committed to continuing the fight and is evaluating the next steps

• Policy ripple effects: A successful challenge could reshape NCAA rules and spark similar legal and legislative actions.

• NCAA on defense: The organization is likely to oppose on appeal, maintaining that eligibility limits are necessary for preserving amateurism and roster fairness.