By Luke Price
Four former University of Michigan football players have filed a proposed class action seeking to extend the reach of name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) compensation beyond the retroactive window established by the House settlement. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, accuses the NCAA, the Big Ten, and the Big Ten Network (“BTN”) of conspiring for decades to suppress athlete compensation while continuing to profit from the commercial use of players’ performances.
The complaint is led by former Wolverines quarterback Denard Robinson, wide receiver Braylon Edwards, defensive lineman Michael Martin, and linebacker Shawn Crable. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants fixed the value of athlete NIL rights at zero in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. According to the complaint, the NCAA, the conference, and the conference network have continued to use archival game footage, highlight reels, and promotional content featuring the players’ names and likenesses long after their playing careers ended, without consent or compensation.
The plaintiffs seek more than $50 million in damages for being “unlawfully denied” the opportunity to profit from their NIL. The case was dismissed in September, according to The Detroit News, though plaintiffs’ counsel Jim Acho has indicated that an appeal is forthcoming.
The lawsuit targets a gap left by the House settlement, which provided approximately $2.8 billion in back pay for athletes covering the period from 2016 through 2024. The Michigan plaintiffs ask whether the reasoning from O’Bannon v. NCAA and NCAA v. Alston can be applied retroactively to athletes whose performances helped build the modern college sports product before that cutoff.
The Forgotten Class
The complaint defines the proposed class as all former NCAA student-athletes who were active prior to June 15, 2016, whose image or likeness has been used in any video posted by or licensed by the NCAA, BTN, or affiliated entities. That date corresponds with the House settlement’s temporal boundary, separating those entitled to retroactive NIL compensation from those left outside its scope.
The plaintiffs emphasize that former athletes continue to generate commercial value through rebroadcasts, advertising, merchandise, and subscription programming. The complaint cites recurring BTN use of historic moments involving Robinson, Edwards, Martin, and Crable as examples of how past performances remain central to the conference’s media offerings, even as the athletes themselves remain uncompensated.
Antitrust Claims
Relying heavily on Alston, the plaintiffs allege that the NCAA and its members imposed a horizontal restraint on trade by fixing NIL compensation at zero and enforcing that restraint through their monopsony power over college athletes. The complaint points to the Supreme Court’s recognition that the NCAA exercises monopsony power in the market for student-athletes, which supports their antitrust theory.
In addition to damages, the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief invalidating prior assignments of publicity rights and request a share of the ongoing revenue generated from archival game footage featuring their performances.
Right of Publicity
The lawsuit also asserts a claim for misappropriation of publicity under Michigan law. The plaintiffs contend that BTN’s continued use of historic game footage functions as commercial exploitation by driving viewership, advertising revenue, and subscriptions.
The claim creates a dispute over whether monetizing historic sports broadcasts constitutes protected expression under the First Amendment or an impermissible commercial use. Similar disputes have arisen in the video game context, where athletes prevailed against unauthorized use of their likenesses. Applying that reasoning to traditional sports media could have substantial implications for conferences and networks that depend heavily on “classic” programming.
The Big Ten’s Dual Role
A distinctive feature of the complaint is its focus on the Big Ten Conference’s dual role as both a policymaking body and a media stakeholder. The Big Ten owns a 39% interest in BTN, a joint venture with Fox Sports (which owns the remaining 61%). The plaintiffs argue that this ownership structure creates a conflict of interest, allowing the conference to profit directly from media revenue generated under compensation rules it helped enforce.
According to the complaint, BTN and the Big Ten repackaged archival footage into bundled licensing agreements and promotional campaigns that hinge heavily on former players’ performances, generating considerable revenue without compensation for the athletes themselves.
Procedural Hurdles
The plaintiffs confront major procedural challenges. Statute-of-limitations defenses are likely, given that many alleged uses occurred well before 2016. Courts have also been reluctant to reopen settled economic frameworks governing college sports. The defendants are expected to invoke First Amendment protections for rebroadcasting historic sporting events and to argue that the footage is owned by the institutions, conferences, or networks rather than individual athletes.
Class certification may present an additional obstacle, as the proposed class spans decades, sports, and institutions, raising questions about common injury and damages.
Expert Perspective
In an interview, Professor Peter Goplerud, a longtime sports and higher education law scholar with extensive experience advising athletes and addressing NCAA regulatory issues, said that the combination of the House settlement’s temporal cutoff and courts’ continued reluctance to revisit retrospective NIL claims has effectively foreclosed meaningful recovery for athletes whose playing careers ended before 2016.
Why the Case Matters
If successful, the lawsuit could expose conferences and media partners to liability for decades of archival broadcasts, a risk not addressed by the House settlement.
Even if the Michigan plaintiffs do not prevail, the lawsuit underscores lingering tensions between college sports’ commercial success and the treatment of athletes who helped create the underlying media product. While NIL reform has reshaped the landscape for current players, the legal status of those who competed before 2016 remains unresolved in the courts.
This case illustrates how college sports’ modern business model continues to depend on assets created by athletes who were prohibited from sharing in their value, and it raises the question of whether legal recognition of NIL rights leaves any remedy for those who came before.
Luke Price is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law and president of its Sports and Entertainment Law Society. A former collegiate baseball player at Purdue University and Murray State University, he draws on his athletic experience to analyze how law and policy shape opportunities for student-athletes in the modern era of college sports.
