The states of Tennessee and Virginia are taking on the NCAA in federal court over its rules regarding name, image and likeness benefits for athletes, but expect a judgment to impact college sports nationwide.

If NIL rules change based on a court order, it ultimately would apply to all NCAA member schools and more than a half-million athletes.

That’s the way the NCAA has handled previous losses in court.

But other states might not want to join Tennessee and Virginia in this battle until they appear on the verge of victory, and that’s not assured.

That sheds light on why other states – particularly those in the footprint of the SEC – have not joined the antitrust lawsuit filed by attorneys general in Tennessee and Virginia.

“I can’t talk about privileged conversations that may have happened,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told Knox News when asked if he had talked to other states’ attorneys general about joining the suit.

“… But depending on which way things go or depending on what the sentiment is in other states, we’re always happy to have other states on board.”

IMPACT ON NCAA INVESTIGATION Here’s what happens to NCAA probe if Tennessee wins or loses in federal court

On Feb. 13, there will be a preliminary injunction hearing in a Greeneville federal courthouse.

If granted, the injunction will freeze the NCAA’s NIL rules until the case concludes, perhaps months later. If denied, NIL rules will remain in place.

However, Judge Clifton Corker has already indicated that the NCAA faces an uphill battle to win the case outright.

“Considering the evidence currently before the court, plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim under the Sherman Act (antitrust),” Corker wrote in his opinion in a denied temporary restraining order.

So why are Tennessee and Virginia confronting the NCAA while other states watch from the sideline? Precedent, proximity and timing are major factors.

Florida hasn’t sued NCAA for its schools. Tennessee did.

There are more than 523,000 athletes at 1,088 institutions in the NCAA, according to the association’s participation database, and they all potentially are affected by NIL rules.

But football schools in power conferences like the SEC care the most because their athletes have NIL contracts with high-dollar figures. That also means they’re under the most scrutiny.

Florida State, an ACC member, was recently penalized by the NCAA for NIL violations.

University of Florida, an SEC member, is under investigation for its recruitment of quarterback Jaden Rashada. He switched his commitment from Miami to Florida, whose collective reportedly offered him a $13 million NIL deal. But that agreement fell through, which led to the ongoing NCAA probe and Rashada signing with Arizona State.

So why hasn’t Florida joined the suit challenging NIL rule? On Friday, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office did not respond to a Knox News request for comment.

While Florida didn’t sue the NCAA on behalf of its state schools, Tennessee did.

Skrmetti said news of an NCAA investigation into the University of Tennessee signaled him to file the suit. He saw a fight in his own backyard and joined in.

But he said the suit, generally, seeks to defend NIL rights of athletes from across the state.

“These restrictions on prospective student-athletes violate federal antitrust law,” Skrmetti said. “We sued to protect the rights of current and future Tennessee student-athletes from Memphis to Mountain City, from Union City to Unicoi County, from Covington to Cleveland, and everywhere in between.”

DID NICO IAMALEAVA BREAK NIL RULES? Here's a timeline of quarterback's involvement in NCAA probe

Other states can win without joining Tennessee’s fight

There’s an easy answer to why other states haven’t joined the suit: They don’t have to.

“I think because the issue is going to get resolved either way, it may be that some people were thinking that they’d just sit back and see what happens and let us fight it out,” Skrmetti said.

If the court grants the preliminary injunction, athletes at all NCAA member schools should reap the benefits by negotiating and signing NIL contracts before enrolling. For now, that violates NCAA rules as recruiting inducements.

Either the judge could include language in his order that makes the decision applicable nationwide, or the NCAA could recognize it that way.

But if neither occurred, other states could immediately file their own cases to seek the same relief granted in this suit. It wouldn’t be hard to latch on to a winning cause.

“I don’t want to speculate on what the court might do,” Skrmetti said. “Our interest here is both in student-athletes at Tennessee institutions and prospective athletes in Tennessee who may be recruited elsewhere.

“… But it may be that if we get (the injunction granted) and it’s only limited to the two states, fundamental fairness might dictate that (the NCAA says), ‘Hey, we’ve got to have the same rules for everybody.’”

Tennessee led last NCAA suit, but others jumped on bandwagon

Skrmetti knows from experience how the NCAA handles defeat. It fights hard but retreats if a loss is likely.

But that’s also when other states join the fight once the outcome is clearer.

In December, Skrmetti led Tennessee into a seven-state coalition that sued the NCAA, arguing that its multi-transfer restrictions violated antitrust laws.

On Dec. 14, the states of Colorado, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia won a request for a temporary restraining order.

It immediately allowed undergraduate athletes to transfer multiple times without having to sit out one season of competition, which had been the NCAA rule.

On Dec. 15, the NCAA relented and agreed to the states’ terms for a preliminary injunction, which extended the rule change through the 2024 spring semester for all its athletes, and not just for the seven states that filed the suit.

For good measure, on Jan. 18, the U.S. Department of Justice joined the suit, along with the states of Minnesota, Mississippi and Virginia and the District of Columbia as co-plaintiffs.

By then, the rule had been amended for all NCAA athletes.

NCAA can win injunction hearing, which extends

However, there’s a notable difference between the states’ suits against the NCAA over the multi-transfer rule and now NIL rules. The judge granted the temporary restraining order in the prior but denied it in the latter.

That means Tennessee must expand its arguments to gain a preliminary injunction, which Skrmetti said isn't an easy task. But that's the best way to get support from other states.

“It is possible to get a preliminary injunction after you don’t get a (temporary restraining order). But it’s probably more common that if you don’t get the (temporary restraining order), you don’t get the preliminary injunction,” Skrmetti said.

“So we’re going to continue pushing, but this is a case that ultimately is going to be decided on its merits. … What really matters is the long-term resolution of this problem and the recognition of the rights of student-athletes.”

Adam Sparks is the Tennessee football beat reporter. Email adam.sparks@knoxnews.com. 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: As Tennessee takes on NCAA in court, other states stay on sideline