The NCAA claims that Terrelle Pryor, a former quarterback at Ohio State, is incompatible with intellectual property law and barred by appropriate statutes of requirement. Additionally, Pryor’s participation in settled course activity claims led by EdO’Bannon, Sam Keller, and Shawne Alston precludes them. NIL deals were never approved by the NCAA throughout Pryor’s college job and were kept out until 2021.
The NCAA and the Big Ten Conference filed a motion to reject on January 3 in an Ohio federal district court. Its explanations are included in that activity.
Pryor sued in October, accusing the NCAA, the Big Ten, Ohio State and Learfield of conspiring to violate antitrust laws and unfairly enriching themselves. He requests that all previous Ohio State players who competed before the NCAA approved NIL in 2021 have their cases classed as a result. In the same year, the NCAA and its members passed an interim Minimal legislation that upheld eligibility restrictions for college athletes who could not use their publicity rights. Professional athletes use this right to sign endorsement deals and prohibit the use of another person’s identity for business purposes without their permission. The NCAA made the decision as position NIL rules were about to go into effect and as NIL legislation failed to be passed by Congress.

Pryor’s case is similar to those brought by other former college stars, including Reggie Bush and a group of former University of Michigan football players ( Denard Robinson, Braylon Edwards, Michael Martin and Shawn Crable ). They demand recompense for what they would have earned if NIL had been permitted while playing. They also point out how the NCAA and conferences capitalized on their availability to land lucrative items, clothing, and TV offers.
Pryor, who won the Big Ten’s MVP of the Rose Bowl in 2010, broke NCAA laws in 2011 by suspending him and four other friends for getting “free tattoos.” They sold antiques, signed signatures for a tattoo parlor, and received pleasant tattoos in exchange. This kind of action may be permitted under the current NIL regulations, but it was prohibited at the time. Pryor, like another D-1 players, accepted sportsmanship restrictions as a problem of playing college sports.
What may sound harsh in the eyes of the NCAA cannot be turned into a valid legal discussion, Pryor sees it.
The NCAA points out that there is a four-year statute of limitations on national antitrust lawsuits, which would apply to statements made after 2020 in a complaint filed in 2024. Pryor played at Ohio State from 2008 to 2010, evidently long before 2020. The NCAA also points out that his cruel enhancement state has a peak statute of limitations of six years, which is beneficial for states involving actions dating back as 2018 but never 2010, which is useful for those claims arising from activities as far back as 2018. Pryor’s event, the NCAA insists, is “more than a decade to late”.

Additionally, the NCAA accuses Pryor of fabricating a event based on “nonexistent rights.”
To that end, the NCAA cites law from the Sixth Circuit ( which governs Ohio federal district courts ) to demand Pryor’s case didn’t progress. The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Marshall v. ESPN ( 2016 ) draws particular attention in the motion to dismiss. College football players sued ESPN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and other organizations for allegedly misappropriating their proper to attention by appearing in matches that were broadcast on television without paying them. According to the Sixth Circuit, college athletes are prohibited from watching sports that are broadcast or replayed. Pryor claims that the NCAA owes him cash for the use of promotion rights in video games, but the NCAA claims that this claim is invalid in light of Marshall and other law.
Additionally, the NCAA cites rights court decisions to assert that broadcasters, promoters, and producers are the ones who own copyrights to game footage. The Ohio law, which “explicitly disclaims a proper of promotion or relevant consent needs for members in activities channels,” is also highlighted.
Finally, the NCAA makes use of the legal doctrines of res judicata and security estoppel, which collectively establish that a legal claim is overturned and cannot be recursively in a case later. In the end, Alston andO’Bannon, both of whom sued over the unregulated use of athletes ‘ NIL in video game and other items, were involved in the group activities that were brought by Pryor and Keller. The NCAA contends that these disputes are related to Pryor’s statements and have been settled through settlements or judgments, which required group members to discharge their claims.
In a later court processing, Pryor’s lawyers will have the opportunity to try to refute these assertions.
The situation is before U. S. District Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison and U. S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers.