Bernie WilsonUpdated on: October 10, 2024 12:41 am GMT
Former Michigan Football Players File $50 Million Lawsuit Against NCAA and Big Ten Network
Four former Michigan football stars, including notable players Denard Robinson and Braylon Edwards, have filed a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA and the Big Ten Network, seeking more than $50 million in damages. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on Tuesday, claims these athletes were “unlawfully denied” the opportunity to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL).
A New Era of College Athlete Rights
The landscape of college athletics shifted significantly in July 2021 when new regulations permitted athletes to earn money from their NIL. However, the lawsuit argues that former players, particularly those who participated before June 15, 2016, were excluded from benefiting from their likenesses, which the NCAA and Big Ten Network have monetized without their consent.
According to the 73-page complaint, the plaintiffs are entitled to a share of revenue generated from the use of their publicity rights. This claim encompasses any video content, merchandise, or related use that has profited from their performances during their time as college athletes.
The Plaintiffs
The lawsuit has been brought forward by Robinson, Edwards, Mike Martin, and Shawn Crable, represented by Livonia-based attorney Jim Acho. The former athletes contend that they have been systematically exploited by the NCAA and its affiliates for decades.
- Denard Robinson: Known for his record-setting college career as a quarterback from 2009-2012, Robinson holds several Michigan records, including rushing yards by a quarterback. His likeness appeared on the cover of EA Sports‘ NCAA Football 14 in 2013, yet he has not received compensation for this use.
- Braylon Edwards: A standout receiver from 2001-2004, Edwards won the Biletnikoff Award in his senior season, honoring him as the nation’s top college receiver.
- Mike Martin: A defensive lineman who played from 2008 to 2011, Martin starting 37 games during his tenure with the Wolverines.
- Shawn Crable: A linebacker from 2003 to 2007, Crable was recognized as a second-team All-Big Ten player in his senior year.
The Legal Grounds for the Suit
The suit asserts that the NCAA and Big Ten Network have profited extensively from past games and activities involving the plaintiffs, which have been broadcast, marketed, and referenced in merchandise sales. For instance, BTN has aired classic Michigan football games since its inception in 2006, further leveraging these players’ contributions without compensation to them.
Acho emphasized the historical context of the lawsuit, expressing the need to rectify longstanding grievances against the NCAA and return compensation to those who have been denied the right to profit from their contributions to college sports.
Context of Recent Developments in College Sports
This lawsuit comes on the heels of significant changes in college athletics regarding athlete compensation. In May, the NCAA and several power conferences settled prior lawsuits contesting the compensation rules for college athletes, agreeing to a monumental deal valued at nearly $3 billion. This settlement pertains to athletes who entered college after the cutoff date in 2016, raising critical questions about the treatment of those who played before that date.
As the ongoing legal discussions around NCAA regulations evolve, this lawsuit represents a growing trend as former athletes assert their rights to NIL compensation. Many in the sports community anticipate that it could pave the way for similar legal actions from athletes at other prominent programs across the nation.
The Implications for Future Athletes
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for current and future college athletes. If the court agrees with the plaintiffs, it may establish a precedent that obliges the NCAA and its affiliates to provide compensatory mechanisms for past athletes. The suit highlights concerns about the exploitation of college athletes—a topic that has gained traction in recent years as more former players advocate for their rights.
As the case proceeds under the jurisdiction of U.S. District Judge Terrence Berg, attention will be focused on how the courts interpret the complexities surrounding athletes’ rights and institutional accountability in regards to NIL policies.
In summarizing the plaintiffs’ claims, the suit seeks not only monetary compensation but also an injunction to prevent future misuse of their publicity rights without consent. The allegations assert that the NCAA has engaged in activities that violate antitrust laws, particularly in how it has historically restricted athletes from asserting their commercial rights.
Sorry, there’s no content to rewrite. If you have another paragraph or text, feel free to share it!
