FOLLOW US

The NCAA, Big Ten Conference, and Big Ten Network urged a Michigan federal judge on Wednesday to leave untouched the dismissal of a $50 million lawsuit from former college football players, arguing the court correctly determined the claims were filed too late.

U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg dismissed the complaint in September, ruling that the antitrust and unjust enrichment claims of four former University of Michigan football players — Denard Robinson, Braylon Edwards, Michael Martin, and Shawn Crable — were barred by the statute of limitations. The players’ careers had ended by 2012, and their claims arose from the NCAA and conference profiting from their names, images, and likenesses (NIL) without compensation.

The plaintiffs filed suit in September 2024, seeking to represent a class of athletes whose careers ended before June 15, 2016 — the cutoff for a $2.78 billion NIL settlement covering later athletes. The players had asked to amend the court’s ruling in October, contending that the court erred in finding their claims time-barred and in relying on the dismissal of earlier suits.

Defendants Argue Statute Bars Claims

The NCAA and Big Ten countered that the antitrust claims fall outside the Sherman Act’s four-year statute of limitations, while the unjust enrichment claims exceed Michigan’s six-year limit. The former players alleged that the NCAA and Big Ten imposed a “regime of restrictive agreements that artificially fixed the value of Plaintiffs’ NIL at zero, resulting in profound economic harm,” but the defendants argued this conduct occurred before 2012, making the 2024 suit untimely.

“Any alleged continued commercial use of Plaintiffs’ NIL rights after 2012 is a manifestation or reaffirmation of past conduct,” the filing said. “Plaintiffs have not alleged an overt act necessary to restart the statute of limitations.”

The defendants noted that courts have consistently found that ongoing commercial use of NIL rights does not constitute a new violation sufficient to revive time-barred claims. Likewise, the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims fail because any alleged benefit to the NCAA or Big Ten arose when the student-athletes initially signed agreements allowing use of their NIL.

“Rule 12(b)(6) does not require this Court to resuscitate these time-barred claims, and Plaintiffs fail to identify any clear legal error,” the defendants wrote.

Representatives for the NCAA, Big Ten, and Big Ten Network did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and attorneys for the plaintiffs were also unavailable Thursday.