Former Ohio State QB's lawsuit over lost NIL opportunities dismissed
The class action suit against the NCAA, Ohio State, the Big Ten and others brought by former Ohio State quarterback Terrelle Pryor was not done in a timely manner, according to Chief U.S. District Judge Sarah Morrison.
Pryor's suit, filed in October, alleged that by not allowing student athletes to profit from the commercial use of their names, images and likenesses, the NCAA and other defendants violated antitrust law.
Pryor argued in the lawsuit that he "would have been one of the highest paid collegiate athletes in the country" if NIL had been legal while he was playing at Ohio State. He also claimed the NCAA and the other defendants continue to make revenue from his name, image and likeness.
Under U.S. antitrust laws, plaintiffs generally have a four-year window to bring a claim. Pryor was the quarterback at Ohio State from 2008-10.
"Mr. Pryor knew the material facts underlying his antitrust claims long before the four-year limitations period had run," Morrison said in her ruling.
Additionally, Morrison ruled that as a public school and arm of the state, Ohio State was immune from the lawsuit.
Similar lawsuits were filed by former Southern California running back Reggie Bush, several former Michigan football players, and basketball players from Kansas and North Carolina State.
Since 2021, and under pressure from states and the courts, the NCAA has allowed student-athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness (NIL). Student-athletes can now be compensated for merely showing up to play and can earn a profit for spokesperson gigs, clothing and autograph sales and more.
Additionally, a legal ruling on June 6 allowed colleges to directly pay players via revenue sharing for the first time. The settlement of House v. NCAA marked the end of the NCAA's previous model of amateurism, in which athletes were not allowed to earn money while in school. Schools can now share up to $20.5 million of their revenues with their athletes.
--Field Level Media
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Big Ten College Football Playoff plan would make season worse
On a wild Saturday last November, Florida upset Mississippi and Oklahoma stunned Alabama in results that altered the playoff field. That same day, Penn State barely survived Minnesota, and Arizona State wriggled past Brigham Young in a thriller with playoff stakes. Regular-season television ratings peak in November. It's the rest of the season that could use a boost. That's where Petitti's controversial 4+4+2+2+1+3 playoff plan falls flat. Big Ten playoff plan would devalue non-conference games Petitti claims to want a playoff model that would improve the regular season, but his plan wouldn't achieve that goal. The surest way to improve the season would be to incentivizing teams to play tough non-conference games and reduce the feast of cupcake games that shackle the season's early weeks. Petitti, though, aims to devalue non-conference games. November would stay great in his plan, and play-in Saturday would generate buzz, but his idea to award more than 80% of the playoff bids based on conference standings and play-in games would diminish September and, to a lesser extent, even October. "Fans will gravitate to" play-in games, Petitti said Tuesday at Big Ten media days. At what cost? One play-in Saturday is not worth deflating September. If the playoff became a Petitti production based mostly on conference results, interconference games like Ohio State-Texas, LSU-Clemson and Michigan-Oklahoma would become glorified exhibitions. ABSOLUTE POWER: Big Ten, SEC fight to shape College Football Playoff HOME FIELDS: Our ranking of toughest Big Ten college football stadiums Play-in Saturday could prop up average teams Petitti admits to wanting to prolong the playoff hopes of average teams. He sees the chance for an 8-4 Big Ten team winning a play-in game and cracking the playoff as an asset, not a detriment. I see a structure that would make the season's first two months less relevant. I'm envisioning a scenario in which Iowa loses to Iowa State in a September non-conference matchup, and the Hawkeyes slog to 8-4 before winning a play-in game to reach the playoff, while the Cyclones go 10-2, lose a play-in game and miss the playoff. That's how a playoff becomes a farce. Fortunately, Petitti's playoff plan is going nowhere fast. He's failed to gain support from other conferences. The playoff format for 2026 and beyond remains undecided. Petitti would like to diminish the selection committee's role and, as he puts it, allow playoff spots to be decided on the field and not in a boardroom. In practice, his plan not only would diminish the selection committee, but it also could dilute the influence of some November results. Alabama, Mississippi and Miami lost to unranked opponents late last November, results that bounced them from the playoff. If Petitti's model had been in place, the losing teams would have retained a playoff path through play-in games. I don't see how college football's season improves if Syracuse upsetting Miami on the final day of November carries no weight on the playoff picture. How to actually improve college football's regular season Petitti's playoff plan would earmark four automatic bids for the Big Ten and four more for the SEC - that's half of a 16-team field - while the Big 12 and ACC received only two automatic bids apiece. Is it any wonder why the Big Ten hatched this plan, and the Big 12 and ACC detest it? If Petitti wants to get serious about improving the regular season, then he's going about this backward by focusing on conference standings and propping up mediocre teams. Here's how you improve the regular season: Preserve automatic bids for conference champions, but keep most of the playoff bracket open to at-large bids, and devise a system in which the playoff committee values meaningful non-conference results while evaluating bubble teams. As it is now, Big Ten teams like Indiana and Nebraska are canceling their toughest non-conference games in favor of weaker schedules, and SEC teams cling to their Championship Subdivision games like a child hugs a security blanket. These gimme games bog down the schedule, particularly early in the season. To rectify that, task the selection committee to reward teams that schedule - and win - tough non-conference games and hold accountable bubble teams that beefed up their record purely by blasting patsies. Do this, and you'd spur more Big Ten vs. SEC games, of which there are only three this season. Likewise, only three SEC teams will play a Big 12 opponent. Generating more high-stakes non-conference clashes between Power Four opponents not only would become a boon for September audience, those games also would help the committee separate the wheat from the chaff come selection time. Imagine if Oklahoma played Oklahoma State this October, instead of Kent State, or if Texas played Texas Tech in September, instead of Sam Houston, or if Southern California opened the season against Missouri, instead of Missouri State. That's how you improve the season. College football needs a play-in Saturday in December less than it needs more significant non-conference games, some of which could restore rivalries that conference realignment interrupted. College basketball figured this out. The NCAA men's tournament selection committee values victories against opponents within the top quadrants and thereby rewards teams that schedule tough. Qualifying for March Madness isn't purely an exercise of assembling a fine record. Who you played, and who you beat, matters. Teams that avoid tough games are held accountable in bubble debates. Petitti claims he's got college football's regular season at heart in his playoff plan. He's wrong. His playoff plan would diminish and neglect the non-conference portion of the schedule that needs enhancement. Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network's national college football columnist. Email him at BToppmeyer@ and follow him on X @btoppmeyer.
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump signs executive order to rein in ‘chaotic' influence of money on college sports
Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order prohibiting 'third-party, pay-for-play' payments to college athletes, a move the White House says is intended to curb the booster-funded bidding wars that have upended the landscape of college sports in recent years. The order asserts that recent court rulings and a patchwork of conflicting state laws have dismantled long-standing NCAA rules, creating what it describes as a 'chaotic environment' that threatens the financial stability and competitive balance of collegiate athletics. It marks the most aggressive federal intervention yet in response to the rapid commercialization of college sports, particularly in football and men's basketball, where top programs now spend tens of millions of dollars to attract and retain athletes through name, image and likeness (NIL) deals. Under the new directive, schools would be expected to eliminate any third-party NIL payments used as recruiting inducements, while still allowing fair-market compensation for legitimate services such as brand endorsements. The order also seeks to protect women's and non-revenue sports, directing athletic departments to preserve – and in some cases expand – scholarship opportunities and roster spots in programs that don't generate significant revenue. Starting with the 2025–26 academic year, schools with more than $125m in athletic revenue are urged to increase their investment in non-revenue sports, while schools with $50m or more are required to maintain existing levels. The president's order points to growing disparities fueled by state-level legislation, including the more than 30 states that have passed NIL laws, and warns that the resulting imbalance has created an 'oligarchy' of wealthier programs that can simply outbid rivals for the best players. It also cites rising concerns that runaway NIL spending is draining resources from Olympic and educational sports that form the foundation of America's athletic system. 'Absent guardrails to stop the madness,' the order reads, 'many college sports will soon cease to exist.' In addition to targeting NIL abuses, the executive order: Calls on the Department of Education, the FTC, and the Department of Justice to develop enforcement and regulatory plans within 30 days Directs the Department of Labor and National Labor Relations Board to clarify the employment status of student-athletes in ways that prioritize educational benefits Instructs federal agencies to use Title IX enforcement, funding decisions, and litigation strategy to protect the long-term viability of college athletics Encourages collaboration with Congress and state governments to advance a national framework The order highlights the outsized role that college athletics play in US Olympic success, noting that 75% of athletes on the 2024 Olympic team were current or former collegiate athletes, and argues that preserving a broad base of non-revenue sports is essential to maintaining America's international dominance. While the order outlines sweeping federal priorities, it remains unclear how many of its provisions will be implemented in practice, particularly in the absence of new legislation. Still, the White House insists the move is necessary to restore fairness and stability to a system that it describes as 'drifting toward professionalization'. 'College sports are not, and should not be, professional sports,' the order declares. 'A national solution is urgently needed before it's too late.'
Reuters
8 hours ago
- Reuters
Trump signs order aimed at curbing big-money college sports payouts
WASHINGTON, July 24 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump waded into a debate over the influence of big-money payouts in college sports on Thursday, signing an executive order adding federal government scrutiny to the practice. The order, which is expected to face legal challenges, seeks to block some recruiting payments by third parties like donors to college athletes in big-dollar sports like football and men's basketball in order to preserve funds available for women's and non-revenue sports. Though the practice is already forbidden by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, some donors have found ways to bypass the rules to recruit top talent with lucrative offers. The policy is not aimed at fair-market compensation to athletes for brand endorsements, the White House said. The order also pushes colleges to raise scholarship payments for non-revenue sports and directs U.S. officials to start "clarifying" the legal status of student-athletes. Trump's directive could lead to changes in school budgets as well as the multimillion-dollar market for U.S. college athletes, and it could lead to limitations on payouts or employment rights for those athletes. Yet how exactly the policy will be enforced is still to be determined. Under the order, federal officials will develop a plan to deliver on Trump's order using "all available and appropriate regulatory, enforcement, and litigation mechanisms," including their funding power over states, colleges and universities. Since taking office in January, Trump has repeatedly tried to intervene in actions by sports leagues, colleges and universities. A February executive order aimed to bar transgender women from competing in women's sports. The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee implemented such a ban this week, citing the order. Trump has also targeted elite universities' federal funding over topics including pro-Palestinian student protests. Columbia University on Wednesday said it would pay over $200 million in a settlement to resolve federal probes and have most of its suspended federal funding restored. The NCAA, which governs U.S. sports in higher education, had long prohibited student-athletes from receiving compensation for athletics outside of scholarships in a bid to preserve the amateurism of college sports and keep the playing field fair for recruiting. But in June 2021, the organization approved an interim policy allowing college athletes to make money by selling their name, image and likeness (NIL) rights. The policy allowed student athletes to make money through activities such as signing autographs, endorsing products or businesses, and making personal appearances so long as the activities were legal in the state where the school was located. In March 2025, the NCAA agreed to permanently eliminate its rule that prohibited student athletes from negotiating NIL deals before enrolling in a school. The change came a day after a legal settlement between the NCAA and a group of state attorneys general who had sued the organization, arguing that the restriction violated federal antitrust law. The changes in recent years on NIL payments, the White House said, "has created a chaotic environment that threatens the financial and structural viability of college athletics." Michael LeRoy, a University of Illinois labor and employment relations professor, said the order would likely be challenged as unconstitutional. "The fact that players want to have the same rights under antitrust law that everybody else has is not a problem," he said. The problem, he said, is that the NCAA and athletic conferences that govern top sports "have stubbornly refused to grant employment status and collective bargaining to athletes." In a statement, NCAA President Charlie Baker said it was grateful for the administration's focus on the issue and said that new legislation may be necessary to address problems facing college sports. "There are some threats to college sports that federal legislation can effectively address and the Association is advocating with student-athletes and their schools for a bipartisan solution with Congress and the Administration," he said.
