Four past University of Michigan football players—Denard Robinson, Braylon Edwards, Michael Martin and Shawn Crable—sued the NCAA and Big Ten Network Monday in a Michigan federal judge, accusing them of conspiring to violate antitrust laws by denying NIL options.
The four defendants were active for the Raptors at various times between the 2000s and the early 2010s, decades before the House, Carter, and Hubbard competitive litigations began to settle. If NCAA regulations had allowed them to pursue NFL occupations, the four were renowned college athletes who were likely to have signed lucrative NIL deals. Through their attorney, James Acho, the four say the NCAA and Big Ten Network have caused more than$ 50 million in damages.

On behalf of NCAA athletes who played before June 15, 2016, and whose names or likelines were used by the NCAA, the Big Ten Network, or its business associates, the defendants even want their situation certified as a group activity.
The problem raises well-known legal issues, including those brought by Ed O’Bannon in his landmark situation against the NCAA and EA in 2009 over the unlawful use of athletes ‘ portraits without their permission or payment. The Robinson et cetera. idea. The Big Ten Network, v. NCAA &, is that the NCAA has conspired to use sportsmanship rules to “fix the price of student-athlete work near low and create student-athletes unaware and unpaid life pitchmen for the NCAA” through its member schools, conferences, and business partners.
Until 2021, the NCAA prohibited college athletes from earning compensation through a right they already possessed as Americans—the right of publicity —–as a condition of their eligibility. That meant that college athletes could n’t influence deals or sign endorsements.
The Big Ten Network is accused of using Michigan players ‘ NIL in live events, replays, highlight reels, documentaries, and promotional content without making any amends. This argument centers on a crucial element of the House case, which contends that the NCAA’s prohibition on power conferences from distributing broadcasting revenue to players constitutes an unlawful form of NIL suppression.
The complaint makes reference to recent defeats for the NCAA to back up its argument. It notes that in NCAA v. Alston, the U. S. Supreme Court found the NCAA violated antitrust law by limiting colleges ‘ ability to compensate athletes for education-related expenses. Alston made it clear that the NCAA and its system of amateurism are subject to regular antitrust scrutiny and are not entitled to a deferential form of review, even though it did n’t concern NIL or paying college athletes to play sports.
The complaint also highlights O’Bannon’s case, which proved NIL restrictions violated antitrust laws. Those restrictions reflected competing businesses (schools and conferences ) agreeing—as the four players write in their complaint—to “reduce the cost of student-athletes ‘ publicity rights to zero”.

Robinson et al. The defendants are accused of numerous violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, a federal law that forbids competing companies from unreasonable restraining competition in defined markets, by NCAA & Big Ten Network. By denying those athletes NIL opportunities, the NCAA and the Big Ten are accused of conspiring to “artificially reduce to almost zero” the value of their NIL.
Additionally, allegations of alleged group boycott and refusal to cooperate are raised in the case. The NCAA is accused of using its monopoly power over college sports and athlete labor to “assign their publicity rights to the NCAA” and “use their monopoly power” to thwart competition for athletes ‘ services. The Big Ten is depicted as a “beneficiary” of this alleged plot because it is relieved of having to share revenue with the players.
The plaintiffs ‘ alleged monetary harms range from severe to catastrophic. They include:
· Loss of market value for NIL rights ( the players could n’t sign NIL deals and thus earn their market value ).
· Suppressed earnings from endorsements ( the players could n’t land lucrative endorsement deals with brands, such as those in apparel or beverages ).
Missed opportunities for media appearances ( the players could have made money by speaking in public and appearing in commercials ).
Uncompensated use of likeness in goods ( players could have made money off of their appearances in clothing sales and video games ).
· Revenue from archived footage and highlight reels ( the players could have, and could still, earn profits from use of archived footage of them in TV commercials and online advertisements ).
· Loss of future earnings potential ( the players were denied a chance to build their brand while in college, which could have led to” substantial long-term financial benefits” ).
· Loss of group licensing opportunities ( the players, if they were employees, could have unionized and entered into CBAs, even if not employees, they could have formed trade associations that negotiate group licensing deals on behalf of players ).
Opportunities for social media influencer marketing ( while the social media industry was not as developed or commercialized when it was active in the 2000s, it was still alive and might have allowed for compensation )
· Long-tail endorsement opportunities ( players could have gained from deals with local endorsements that are “often-overlooked” )
· Revenue sharing from media rights ( the players, like pro athletes, could be compensated for appearing on broadcasts by gaining a share of the revenues ).
The plaintiffs are asking for an injunction that would require the NCAA and Big Ten to put an end to their allegedly illegal practices in addition to financial damages.
The Big Ten Network and the NCAA will respond to the complaint and request that it be dismissed. Expect them to refute the claims that the athletes played for Michigan for more than a dozen years. Thus, the claims will be criticized because they were made too late and barred by applicable statutes of limitation of five or fewer years.
The complaint invokes the continuing violations doctrine, which effectively extends the period of legal action by allowing claims that reflect persistent or unlawful conduct or harm, in order to elicit a statute of limitations defense. To varying degrees, the alleged harms described above contain ongoing features. The plaintiffs also contend that because athletes were told they had to” sign away publicity rights” in order to be eligible for scholarships, the defendants should not be subject to statute of limitations arguments.
The players ‘ willingness to play amateurism as a condition of their eligibility to receive athletic scholarships and other acceptable forms of compensation will likely be a part of another defense argument. Further, in other cases, the NCAA has described amateurism rules as enhancing educational, equity and competitive balance objectives. In O’Bannon and Alston, those arguments were unsuccessful, and the NCAA largely abandoned them as part of a proposed settlement to end the House, Carter, and Hubbard antitrust litigations.
However, as I wrote in a recent Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law article, there is favorable precedent for the NCAA at the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit—the circuit which governs Michigan’s federal district courts. In Marshall et al. v. ESPN et al. College players argued that TV networks cheated on them by starring them in TV shows that were broadcast on television without paying them in 2016 and misappropriating their right to publicity. Judge Raymond Kethledge refuted this assertion, arguing that the players had suggested a “unworkable scenario” where “broadcasts are illegal unless each player on each team has a license.” He also wondered who else might need to be paid, such as referees, coaches and fans, if being on a game broadcast commands a right to payment.
The NCAA’s latest lawsuit comes at a turbulent time for it, as it tries to preserve some semblance of amateurism while supporting the proposed settlement, which would allow colleges to figuratively pay players for NIL use as well as media rights and ticket sales sponsorships. Former athletes in North Carolina and New York have sued the NCAA in North Carolina and New York to demand payment for the use of archival football from former championship teams.
Attorney Tom Mars, who has represented the Los Angeles Chargers, former Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh, and other well-known coaches and athletes in legal matters, told Sportico that the most recent lawsuit is yet another issue for the NCAA.
” Already facing impending disaster, the NCAA does n’t have enough fingers to plug all the holes in the current class-action dike”, Mars said. The filing of this new class action is” an invitation for other former college athletes to file similar lawsuits against the NCAA and others who have misappropriated players ‘ NIL rights for decades,” the statement reads.