The passage of time and the limits of the law, according to the NCAA, events, and Turner Sports, prevent Mario Chalmers and 15 other previous school baseball players from bringing an antitrust lawsuit against the use of their NIL in channels.
The defendants ‘ arguments are detailed in a motion to dismiss filed last Friday in the Southern District of New York, which was written by Rakesh N. Kilaru and more than twenty other attorneys. Chalmers, who starred for the Kansas Jayhawks before playing nine times in the NBA, is leading a group of players who played for the 1997, 2008, 2011 and 2014 NCAA championship team. They filed a complaint in July, one month after nine members of North Carolina State’s final staff, Thurl Bailey, filed a similar complaint in the state.

The plaintiffs ‘ fundamental legal theory is that Turner Sports Interactive, the NCAA, six conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC ), and their broadcast partner have conspired illegally in antitrust law without paying royalties. The people ‘ issue information video “prominently placed on NCAA.com” and on numerous YouTube stations. These videos, which feature spectacular events from the past, generate marketing earnings, promotion and another benefit to the accused.
The plaintiffs raise some counterarguments, starting with the claim that the statements are time-barred. Antitrust states generally have a four-year statute of limitations. The people in Chalmers ‘ complaint appeared in activities long before 2020, in some cases, during the last decade. The plaintiffs claim they played too long ago to provide a meritorious claim, despite the plaintiffs ‘ claim that the violations, which include net videos, are still ongoing.
Another safeguard is that the states have already been litigated and are thus barred by re judicata and security estoppel. Once legal claims and issues have been resolved in court, those legal principles are over and ca n’t be used in pending cases. The defendants also point out that the plaintiffs were involved in class-action communities that resulted in defendants ‘ says being released. If the accused are successful in making that claim, the people would have underwritten agreements whereby they have waived claims.
The plaintiffs claim that the people were represented in antitrust lawsuits led by Ed O’Bannon, Sam Keller, and Shawne Alston to improve those claims. The registration of Alston’s team for accompanying treatments was now determined through those litigations and settlements, as the NCAA and the co-defendants might see it.
The plaintiffs also emphasize case law ( although in some cases from other federal wires and thus not binding on Chalmers ‘ event in the Southern District of New York ) to reject the possibility that Chalmers might experience an antitrust damage from using his NIL in sports broadcasts. The plaintiffs cite Marshall et. as v. ESPN et as. ( 2016 ), in which a lawsuit brought by college football players demanding compensation for TV appearances was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The court reasoned that if the players could demand payment for appearing in matches, so too could referees, coaches, girls, band members, medical staff and even fans, an arrangement that would make it practically impossible to broadcast sports ( for more on that case, see my recent law review article in the Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law ).

Additionally, the defendants point to state statutes and judicial rulings that state that the promoter or producer of an event is responsible for granting a sporting event licenses no athletes, coaches, cheerleaders, or other participants. ” A proper of publicity”, the movement to reject maintains, “does not occur when a person merely appears in public or in a picture taken in a public setting”.
The accused acknowledge the gamers have a beneficial decision on their part: O’Bannon v. NCAA. As the accused concede, U. S. District Judge Claudia Wilken found there could be a proper of attention in a spread. But the accused maintain” that decision is inconsistent with the great mass of law cited]in the memorandum ]”, and they urge U. S. District Court Judge Paul A. Engelmayer to “follow the prevailing criminal discussion, no O’Bannon”.
Lawyers for Chalmers will have the opportunity to challenge the plaintiffs ‘ action.
The NCAA is being sued by Terrelle Pryor, Reggie Bush, and former Michigan football players in separate cases over paid NIL while the Chalmers and Bailey situations are taking place.
These claims are a reminder that even if the NCAA’s colony to handle the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust cases gains last acceptance and withstands potential challenges, there’s no end in sight for the NCAA as a plaintiff.