In a new development that challenges the NCAA's longstanding approach to Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights, four former University of Michigan football players, including quarterback Denard Robinson and wide receiver Braylon Edwards, have filed a class-action lawsuit against both the NCAA and the Big Ten Network (BTN). The players allege they were systematically denied NIL opportunities during their college careers, despite their performances continuing to generate revenue for both the NCAA and BTN. The lawsuit, reported by outlets like ESPN and CBS Sports, seeks over $50 million in damages and has the potential to shift the landscape of NIL rights and athlete compensation even further.
The Core of the Lawsuit
The plaintiffs claim that the NCAA and BTN have exploited their on-field accomplishments without providing compensation. Specifically, the suit argues that these entities have profited from broadcasting, advertising, and selling merchandise related to the iconic moments these athletes created during their time at Michigan, while the athletes themselves have received no financial benefits.
A key point in the lawsuit is the airing of "classic" Michigan football games on BTN, which have been repeatedly broadcast over the last two decades. According to the former Wolverines, this long-standing practice of airing these games without compensation represents an unjust enrichment at the players' expense. Importantly, this lawsuit does not target the University of Michigan football program but instead focuses on the larger structures of the NCAA and Big Ten Network.
A Broader Context: NIL and Athlete Compensation
This lawsuit comes in the wake of the NCAA's decision in 2021 to allow student-athletes to profit from NIL deals. However, this policy shift left a significant number of former athletes—those who played before 2016—unable to benefit from NIL opportunities. For athletes like Robinson and Edwards, who helped build the brands of their respective schools and conferences, the current system's retrospective limitations are a primary grievance.
The suit also references a broader antitrust settlement that occurred earlier this year, where the NCAA and power conferences agreed to pay roughly $2.7 billion in damages to Division I student-athletes who competed from 2016 onward. The 2016 cutoff was due to the statute of limitations in the original House v. NCAA lawsuit, but the new Michigan case challenges this by seeking to extend compensation to those who played before this cutoff. The outcome of this lawsuit could reshape the future of athlete compensation in ways that address not only current student-athletes but also those who came before the NIL era.
The Legal Implications
The lawsuit represents a continued push for equity and fairness in the world of college sports, where athletes have long fought to be compensated for the value they create. This case could set a precedent for future claims against both the NCAA and individual conferences, particularly for players who were featured prominently in broadcasts, video games, and advertisements before NIL regulations were introduced.
The settlement in May 2024, which still awaits final approval, included provisions that would allow schools to share roughly $20 million per year in revenue with their student-athletes. However, the legal landscape surrounding NIL remains complex, with ongoing debates about restrictions on NIL collectives and the NCAA's authority to approve high-value NIL deals.
A Critical Moment for the NCAA and College Sports
The outcome of this lawsuit will be closely watched, not just by Michigan alumni and fans, but by the broader community of former college athletes who feel they were denied compensation for their contributions to college sports. The implications of a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could reverberate across the NCAA and major conferences, potentially opening the door for a wave of similar lawsuits from athletes who played before the advent of NIL.
As these legal battles continue, one thing is clear: the relationship between college athletes and the institutions that profit from their success is under intense scrutiny. The Michigan lawsuit adds another chapter to the evolving saga of NIL rights and athlete compensation in college sports.
Saluja Law will continue to monitor developments in this case and provide insights into how these legal battles are reshaping the future of college athletics.