Clemson wide receiver Tristan Smith sues NCAA to play another season in college

Clemson wide receiver Tristan Smith has joined the growing list of athletes suing the NCAA in an effort to further extend his eligibility. Sportico reported on the suit on Wednesday afternoon.

Smith reportedly says that he could earn between $300,000 to $600,000 in NIL and marketing opportunities plus potential revenue share if he was eligible to play this fall. That has been the basis for several suits.

SUBSCRIBE to the On3 NIL and Sports Business Newsletter

Clemson had previously applied for a waiver for an additional season of eligibility for Tristan Smith. It argued on the basis that his career began in junior college as a result of academic challenges in high school.

Previously, in some cases, JUCO players have been awarded an additional year of eligibility following a landmark ruling centered on Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia. Pavia was able to play beyond his eligibility clock after a judge provided a preliminary injunction in his favor last fall.

According to Sportico, Smith’s complaint contains a claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations, as well as a claim for breach of contract. The breach of contract claim centers on the idea that Smith is a third-party beneficiary of the contractual relationship between Clemson and the NCAA.

As such, Tristan Smith wouldn’t be party to the membership agreement between Clemson and the NCAA but can claim he has a protected and enforceable legal interest in the contract being performed. He claims harm from his waiver being denied by the NCAA.

More on the Diego Pavia eligibility lawsuit

Diego Pavia received a sixth season of eligibility following a preliminary injunction late last year as a result of his suit against the NCAA. He argued his time at New Mexico Military Institute should not count against his eligibility. As his attorneys worked to make it a class-action case, though, the Vanderbilt quarterback said he does not intend on playing another year at Vanderbilt.

In September, a hearing took place in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in which Diego Pavia’s attorneys threatened to stack a challenge to the redshirt rule. They also said they would ask for another injunction that would allow Pavia to play again in 2026, according to sports law professor Sam Ehrlich. Pavia took to social media to make it clear 2025 would be his final season.

“A big part of the hearing was about whether the NCAA’s appeal was moot, meaning that the appellate opinion wouldn’t actually affect anything and thus doesn’t really matter, because Pavia would still be able to play for 2025 based on the waiver, and the appeal is on an injunction based on that waiver,” Ehrlich previously told On3’s Pete Nakos. “Pavia’s attorney argued that the appellate decision is still relevant because if the court finds that the rules are commercial and thus subject to antitrust law, he’ll be filing for a new injunction or an expedited trial schedule at the district court seeking to play 2026 as well.

“It makes sense given that his attorney is also involved in the new class action lawsuit challenging the four seasons rule overall, and Pavia would be seeking — if you take the JUCO year out of the picture — his fifth season in five years.”

On3’s Nick Schultz also contributed to this report.