Unpacking Tennessee vs. NCAA hearing and what judge will decide about NIL rules for athletes

GREENEVILLE, Tenn. − After weeks of buildup complete with back-and-forth filings in a highly anticipated, nationally relevant lawsuit that could change the face of college athletics, representatives from the attorneys general offices of Tennessee and Virginia left court Tuesday much the same as they walked in: unsure of what’s to come.

The states argued in favor of a preliminary injunction, which would freeze the NCAA's rules regarding name, image and likeness benefits for athletes, which they called "a broken market," until the case concludes. Judge Clifton Corker heard arguments for and against an injunction for just over an hour − rocking back and forth in his chair − but ultimately chose to issue a ruling at a later date.

Notably, Corker has already hinted that he felt the states would ultimately prevail in the lawsuit based on anti-trust regulations, but Tuesday’s hearing wasn’t about that. Instead, it solely dealt with whether NIL rules caused irreparable damage to athletes – so much so that the rules should be suspended immediately.

The states' argument rests on how NCAA rules forbid having an NIL offer in-hand when an athlete signs with a school. This, they've argued, suppresses their value because they are not able to compare bids and once they've signed with a school the athlete has lost nearly all of his leverage.

Corker was unimpressed with that argument when he ruled against the states’ request for a temporary restraining order Feb. 6, though he seemed more open to it Tuesday, suggesting that he thought students don't incur harm when they're not able to negotiate as defying common sense.

So, what is Corker deciding? Here are the main questions.

If there are damages from NIL, are they more than financial?

When Corker ruled against the states he found they failed to prove that failing to pause NIL rules would cause immediate and irreparable harm, at least partially because players can make up the money lost in subsequent NIL deals or in some cases through court action.

This has become the central focus of the injunction fight.

The state, as it did in a Feb. 9 filing by Tennessee football coach Josh Heupel, argued the damages were more than monetary, saying a player making an uninformed decision on NIL could lead to “poor decisions" that couldn't be easily fixed.

"Harms like these are impossible to fix after the fact. You only get one playing career and you cannot go back in time. These harms can drastically alter the course of an athlete’s college education and their professional career (whether as a professional athlete or in another industry),” Heupel wrote. “Many of these players don’t go on so these four to five years are all they get. We need to put them in position to make the right choice and make the most of their opportunities."

In court Tuesday, Cam Norris argued on behalf of the state of Tennessee that the NCAA "can't unscramble that egg later," alluding to the lasting impacts of the NIL rules.

The NCAA’s argument was, essentially, nothing has changed in a week and the states continued to fail to prove harm to student-athletes was anything more than speculative.

In a filing ahead of the injunction hearing Feb. 13, the NCAA again pointed a finger at the states’ inability to produce a single student-athlete who could speak to the damage the NIL rules brought against them.

However, the states previously responded by saying no high school student in his right mind would stand up to the NCAA and risk the punishment that could follow.

Exclusive coverage: State of Tennessee vs. NCAA in federal court

• Why Tennessee takes on NCAA in federal court while other states stay on sideline

• What happens to NCAA investigation if Tennessee wins or loses in federal court

• NCAA probe into Tennessee 'payback' for beating bowl ban, attorney general suspects

• Federal judge denies temporary restraining order in Tennessee NIL case vs. NCAA

• NCAA scored first vs. Tennessee in NIL case. But don't mistake that for a final result.

• Josh Heupel joins Tennessee fight against NCAA in court over NIL rules

• Tennessee football player Jackson Lampley files declaration in NCAA lawsuit over NIL

• Tennessee players as employees or no NIL rules? Pros, cons and what's next

• Marsha Blackburn, Cory Booker join forces against NCAA amid UT probe

What about amateurism?

Corker repeatedly brought up the idea of amateurism and whether removing NIL rules would damage the balance expected of amateur athletes.

On this point, the states' response was, more or less, "what amateurism?" Norris pointed to two relevant examples to show how athletes are already losing amateurism status, or at least how it has been understood in the past.

First, he pointed to Georgia quarterback Carson Beck, who purchased a Lamborghini Urus Performante, according to an Instagram post from Atlanta Autos on Feb. 5. The assumption, unconfirmed, is that he used money earned from NIL to buy it. Second, Norris pointed out that San Francisco 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy was making less playing in the NFL than some college athletes across the country.

What’s next?

Corker is under no time crunch to issue his opinion. Once he does, he will decide whether NIL rules should remain or if they should be paused for athletes.

An injunction from the court wouldn't end the NCAA investigation into UT athletics, but it would create a conundrum. The NCAA would then be trying to investigate and seek to punish UT over rules that it could not actively enforce.

What happens if an injunction is granted?

Both the states and the NCAA seem ready to accept any sort of injunction, if granted, should apply nationwide instead of only in the jurisdiction covered by the Eastern District of Tennessee federal court.

Any sort of injunction would only be applied until the end of litigation − that is, until Corker (or more likely an appellate judge) rules on NIL rules.

If the injunction were granted but not applied nationally the NCAA could opt to pause NIL rules nationally anyway to avoid lawsuits from every other state.

When asked after the hearing about the possibility of a limited injunction that would only apply to Tennessee and Virginia, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said he would accept any sort of ruling but felt any sort of injunction that applied only to two states wouldn't be equitable.

What happens if injunction isn’t granted?

Enforcement would remain as it is, the lawsuit would continue and the states would continue arguing the NCAA's NIL regulation creates an atmosphere of anti-competition.

Armed with Corker's favorable language when he suggested the states would ultimately prevail, Skrmetti was confident after Tuesday's hearing.

"The lack of opportunity to make informed decisions is hurting student athletes," Skrmetti said. "It's not right and it's not legal. Federal anti-trust law guarantees them the benefit of a free market and we're going to keep fighting to ensure that that's what they get."

Attorneys representing the NCAA declined to comment.

How we got here

All of this stems from the antitrust lawsuit filed by Skrmetti, along with the state of Virginia against the NCAA over its “NIL-recruiting ban.”

The suit is running parallel to the NCAA’s ongoing investigation into allegations the University of Tennessee broke the sports governing body's NIL rules. Last week, Skrmetti told Knox News the NCAA’s investigation brought the lawsuit and that the NCAA may have payback on the brain because the university avoided the most severe discipline in the NCAA investigation into previous football coach Jeremy Pruitt’s program.

When asked if the UT investigation coming to light was his signal to sue the NCAA, he replied, “Yes, it was.”

Skrmetti’s suit has received nearly universal support from politicians across Tennessee, including Gov. Bill Lee.

The lawsuit is the most notable and far-reaching challenge filed against the NCAA since the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled athletes are eligible to profit from their name, image and likeness in 2021.

Tyler Whetstone is an investigative reporter focused on accountability journalism. Connect with Tyler by emailing him at tyler.whetstone@knoxnews.com. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @tyler_whetstone.

Support strong local journalism by subscribing at knoxnews.com/subscribe.

This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Tennessee vs. NCAA hearing: What will judge decide about NIL rules