On September 26, U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg dismissed a proposed $50 million class action lawsuit brought by four former University of Michigan football players against the NCAA, the Big Ten Conference, and the Big Ten Network (BTN). The dismissal is the latest in a string of district court rulings rejecting bids for compensation by former student-athletes whose college careers ended before the NCAA began allowing them to profit from NIL.
The former players—Denard Robinson, Braylon Edwards, Michael Martin, and Shawn Crable—alleged that the defendants unlawfully exploited their name, image, and likeness (NIL) for decades without compensation. The dismissal follows similar decisions in cases brought by former Ohio State and Kansas players, where it was also found that decades-old NIL claims could not proceed. Collectively, these rulings demonstrate how statutes of limitation and prior NIL settlements are effectively foreclosing NIL claims for pre-2016 student-athletes.
The Theory Behind the Michigan NIL Class Action
The former Michigan athletes' lawsuit was based on claims relating to the alleged coerced assignment of NIL rights. Plaintiffs alleged that NCAA bylaws required student-athletes to sign a Student-Athlete Statement each academic year as a condition of eligibility. The athletes alleged this form agreement stripped them of publicity rights in perpetuity, were imposed on young athletes by coaches or compliance staff, and refusal meant loss of eligibility.
The plaintiffs alleged that the NCAA, the Big Ten, and BTN colluded with each other and partnered with broadcasters to fix the value of NIL rights at zero while continuing to profit from replays, highlights, and merchandise. These acts, according to plaintiffs, amounted to antitrust violations as horizontal and vertical conspiracies.
The former Michigan athletes directly pointed to the House v. NCAA settlement as a source of inequity. The $2.78 billion in damages provided by the House settlement compensates only athletes who played collegiate sports from June 15, 2016 through September 15, 2024, and leaves out pre-2016 players. The former Michigan athletes argued that the defendants continued to monetize archival Michigan games on BTN or YouTube channels long after players graduated, in the exact same way they monetized highlights of post-2016 players, yet only the latter group would share in benefits.
In their words, the system transformed athletes into "uncompensated lifetime pitchmen" for college football. They argued that the commercial value of this content flowed directly from their athletic contributions, and that exclusive ownership claimed by the Big Ten and BTN was inequitable. Plaintiffs claimed losses exceeding $50 million.
The Michigan Decision: Robinson v. NCAA
Judge Berg of the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the case with prejudice, focusing primarily on the timing of the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs' claims were all subject to four-year statute of limitations periods. Defendants argued that the plaintiffs' college careers ended by 2012, and thus, any claims based on their signing away NIL rights were already more than a decade old. The former athletes tried to get around this by arguing that every time the NCAA or BTN streamed a highlight or promoted archival footage, it amounted to a new violation and therefore restarted the limitations clock.
Judge Berg rejected that argument. He drew a line between a new unlawful act and the lingering effects of an old agreement. The alleged unlawful act occurred when the athletes first signed the eligibility forms relinquishing their NIL rights. Everything afterward, including replays, highlight reels, and promotional uses, were simply the downstream consequences of those acts, rather than fresh violations. As the court put it, plaintiffs cannot "repackage the consequences of an old agreement as new overt acts."
The former players also argued that they could not reasonably have known they had claims until the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston, which struck down limits on education-related benefits. Judge Berg rejected that argument too, pointing out that the challenges to the NCCA compensation rules had been public for well over a decade, including the 2015 appellate decision in O'Bannon v. NCCA. Judge Berg emphasized that this history precluded arguments that the athletes were unaware of their legal claims. In Judge Berg's view, the information was out there, and plaintiffs "sat on their rights."
Earlier NIL Class Action Dismissals: Kansas and Ohio State
The Michigan decision was not the first ruling on this issue. Earlier in 2025, two other federal courts had already rejected substantially similar NIL suits.
- Chalmers v. NCAA (Kansas players) — In April, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer (S.D.N.Y.) dismissed a proposed class action brought by Mario Chalmers and other former Division I basketball players, finding that the claims were time-barred and rejecting the "continuing violation" theory.
- Pryor v. NCAA (Ohio State players) — In July, Judge Sarah D. Morrison (S.D. Ohio) dismissed Terrelle Pryor's case on the same grounds. Judge Morrison found that Pryor's claims fall outside the limitations period and equitable tolling was not applicable.
Pending Appeals and the Implications for Future NIL Litigation
Although three district courts have closed the door on NIL lawsuits for pre-2016 athletes, the litigation is not over. The plaintiffs in both the Michigan case and the Kansas case have filed notices of appeal. Those appeals will be heard by the Sixth Circuit and the Second Circuit, respectively, with possible petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The central question on appeals will be whether the lower courts erred in treating the continued use of athletes' NIL, such as replays, highlights, or promotional content, as the effects of older agreements rather than new violations.
Where does that leave athletes? For pre-2016 student-athletes, the path to recovery appears narrow. They've missed out on the House settlement benefits, and unless an appeal court reverses, their claims are barred by the statutes of limitations. For post-2016 student-athletes, relief is being provided through the House settlement, which provides both back pay and a forward-looking revenue-sharing structure.
For future litigation, the battleground will likely shift away from pre-2016 archival uses and toward how the NCAA and conferences implement the House settlement's NIL revenue-sharing model.
If you have questions about the Michigan class action decision, please contact the authors. Venable's Sport Law, Class Action, and Antitrust teams are closely monitoring these developments. Subscribe to Chalk Talk, your legal playbook for the ever-evolving sports industry.