In a move that could reshape the landscape of college sports, yet again, former Ohio State Buckeyes quarterback Terrelle Pryor has filed a class-action lawsuit against Ohio State University, the NCAA, the Big Ten Conference, and Learfield Communications. The suit, filed in the Southern District of Ohio, seeks compensation for the use of his name, image, and likeness (NIL) during his time as a student-athlete—a period before the 2016 rule change allowing athletes to profit from their NIL.
The Lawsuit: A Fight for Retroactive NIL Compensation
Pryor's lawsuit alleges that the defendants profited from his name, image, and likeness without offering him a share of the earnings, which the suit claims is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Specifically, Pryor and his legal team argue that the NCAA, Ohio State, and the Big Ten continue to use footage and promotional materials from Pryor's playing days to generate income without compensating him or other former athletes. This issue dates back to Pryor's tenure with the Buckeyes from 2008 to 2010, a period in which NIL compensation for athletes was strictly prohibited.
In the legal filing, Pryor's team contends that the athletes, particularly those who were punished under the old NCAA rules, were systematically denied the ability to profit from their NIL rights. “For many years and continuing to the present, the Defendants have systematically and intentionally misappropriated the publicity rights and NIL of the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated and in doing so have reaped millions, and perhaps billions, of dollars from the Plaintiffs and the class,” the lawsuit states. These claims echo similar lawsuits filed by other prominent athletes, including former USC running back Reggie Bush.
"Tattoogate" and Its Impact on Pryor's Career
Pryor's college football career was cut short in 2010 due to the infamous "Tattoogate" scandal, in which he and several teammates traded memorabilia for tattoos and cash. At the time, these actions were violations of NCAA rules, and the scandal led to Pryor's early departure from Ohio State. Instead of completing his college career, Pryor entered the 2011 NFL Supplemental Draft, where he was selected by the Oakland Raiders. Despite a promising start, his NFL career never fully materialized as many had hoped, largely due to the timing and circumstances surrounding his transition to the professional level.
In filing this lawsuit, Pryor and his legal team seek to address not only the lack of NIL compensation during his time at Ohio State but also the long-term effects these old NCAA rules had on his career trajectory. The lawsuit argues that Pryor's forced early exit from college football diminished his draft stock and hurt his chances of securing more lucrative opportunities in the NFL.
Broader Implications: A Potential Precedent for Other Athletes
Pryor's case is part of a broader trend in college athletics, where former players denied NIL rights are seeking retroactive compensation. The NCAA's 2021 decision to allow athletes to profit from their NIL marked a significant shift in how college sports operate. However, athletes like Pryor—who played under the previous restrictive rules—are now fighting for justice, arguing that they too should be compensated for the profits generated from their likenesses, even after their playing days ended.
This lawsuit could have sweeping implications for college athletics, as it raises fundamental questions about the fairness of past NCAA policies. As Pryor's legal team points out, promotional footage featuring former athletes remains a major revenue source for schools, conferences, and media companies, and the continued use of that footage without compensating the athletes involved is increasingly being challenged.
Moving Forward: What to Expect
As the case unfolds, it will be closely watched not only by former college athletes but also by universities, conferences, and the NCAA itself. If Pryor's lawsuit is successful, it could pave the way for thousands of former student-athletes to seek compensation for the use of their NIL, potentially reshaping the financial structure of college sports. The case could also influence how the NCAA and its member institutions handle NIL rights for current athletes.
The lawsuit stands as a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over NIL in college sports. As more athletes seek retroactive compensation, this case could set a precedent for how past wrongs are addressed in this new era of college athletics.
At Saluja Law, we continue to monitor these developments and provide insights into the evolving landscape of NIL rights. For student-athletes, both past and present, the shifting legal terrain may open new opportunities for compensation and recognition of their contributions to college sports.