Now after the class-action House lawsuit is in pending settlement, a new wave of former college player lawsuits has begun for those playing before June 2016, starting with former athletes at the University of Michigan suing the NCAA:
Attorney Jim Acho filed the 73-page suit Tuesday morning on behalf of Michigan athletes who concluded their playing careers before June 15, 2016. Acho was quick to note that this lawsuit does not target the Michigan football program or the university but aims to “right a wrong perpetuated on college athletes for decades” by the NCAA.
“This not a suit against the University of Michigan,” Acho told The Detroit News. “None of the many former players wanted to sue UM and neither did I. It is the NCAA that perpetuated this wrong for decades. They knew it was wrong to prevent players from capitalizing on the most valuable thing they have — their name and image. That has been rectified for current players, but the NCAA needs to correct the wrongs of the past. Today is the day for recompense.”
It looks like over the rest of the decade, the NCAA and the Big Ten Network will be paying up even more, but here we go again - the NEW money to pay any OLD debts has to come from somewhere, so hello more gambling deals?
“Numerous former players over the past five decades asked me to file this, and after a lot of research we felt it was absolutely the right thing to do,” Acho said. “I expect former players from other noted football programs will follow our lead and file similar lawsuits.”
The suit argues that the NCAA and Big Ten Network have made money off the performances of Robinson, Edwards, Martin, Crable and other Michigan football players by “broadcasting, advertising, and selling merchandise featuring their performances.” It mentions how Big Ten Network has aired classic Michigan football games for nearly two decades without players ever receiving compensation.
One key to the case that makes it stronger is the recently modern prevalence of conference cable networks until recent years via cord cutting.
Via the entertainment industry, see the case of Dave Chappelle for example, there is legal merit against the notion that any given party can be contracted in perpetuity for profit from their NIL WITHOUT just compensation and consent and then only with restrictions and certain conditions applying, including for expiration of the agreement.
Though many of these developments are in sports and entertainment have been in recent case law, the maxim against contractual perpetuities is an old legal construct, and an attorney in contract law no doubt would know far more.