Explore Ongoing Cases in College Sports Litigation

Click on a case below to view details and updated information on the key legal cases impacting college sports.

  • Latest Update: Two more letters were filed to the House v. NCAA docket: one by University of Illinois law professor Michael LeRoy and one by University of Colorado football walk-on Camden Dempsey on behalf of 92 other Big 12 athletes. (1/17/2025).

  • Newest Added Case: Green v. Hamilton, filed 12/30/2024 (breach of contract lawsuit over allegedly promised NIL deals).

House v. NCAA (and Related)

Description of the Case

This case is an antitrust challenge against the NCAA and "Power Five" Conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and Pac-12) with two primary claims. The first claim argues that the NCAA's restrictions on athlete use of their NIL constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade by depriving those athletes of the ability to earn compensation for the license of their NIL. The second claim argues that the NCAA, conferences, and member institutions have engaged in a group boycott where they have collectively refused to negotiate with athletes for compensation for the use of their NIL in game broadcasts. A third claim, added in advance of a motion for settlement, also claims that the NCAA has violated antitrust law by capping the number of scholarships that may be allotted to athletes per sport.

This is a class action lawsuit involving four classes: (1) a "Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Class" that includes all athletes who have competed on a Division I athletic team since June 15, 2020; (2) a "Football and Men's Basketball Class" that includes all current and former scholarship athletes who have competed on a "Power Five" (plus Notre Dame) Division I football or men's basketball team since June 15, 2016; (3) a "Women's Basketball Class" that includes all current and former scholarship athletes who have competed on a "Power Five" (plus Notre Dame) Division I women's basketball team since June 15, 2016; and (4) an "Additional Sports Class" that includes all current and former athletes who have competed on a Division I athletic team since June 15, 2016 and are not part of the Football and Men's Basketball or Women's Basketball classes. Representative lead plaintiffs are former Arizona State swimmer Grant House, current Texas Christian basketball player Sedona Prince, former Illinois football player Tymir Oliver, former Duke football player DeWayne Carter, current Stanford soccer player Nya Harrison, and former North Carolina lacrosse player Nicholas Solomon.

(Nos. 20-cv-03919, 20-cv-04527, N.D. Cal., Judge Claudia Wilken, filed June 15, 2020)

Current Status

Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss by the NCAA and conference defendants on June 24, 2021, rejecting the defendants' arguments that the claims were already addressed in the Alston and O'Bannon cases and that athletes have no legal entitlement to broadcast game revenue. Instead, she found that the plaintiffs allegations that "absent the challenged rules, 'Division I conferences and schools would compete amongst each other by allowing their athletes to... share in the conferences' and schools' commercial benefits received from exploiting student-athletes names, images, and likenesses,' which include broadcasting revenue" was sufficient to demonstrate antitrust injury.

Since then, the parties have engaged in the pre-trial discovery process. However, on July 26, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for settlement, asking the court to approve an expansive settlement agreement reached with the defendants.  This settlement would pay out approximately $2.8 billion in damages to the various classes of athlete plaintiffs. The agreement would also institute injunctive relief in the form of various rule changes, including:

  • Allowing member institutions to be able to enter into direct NIL agreements with athletes for their broadcast NIL rights (up to a cap of 22 percent of Average Shared Revenue for Power Five institutions);
  • Eliminating scholarship limits in favor of roster limits; and,
  • Enacting restrictions on NIL deals entered into between athletes and third-parties, specifically boosters and booster collectives, where such deals must be for a valid business purpose and for fair market value.

Judge Wilken held a preliminary approval hearing on September 5, 2024, where she heard initial objections and raised a few concerns of her own with the notice forms, future athlete representation rights, and the third-party NIL restrictions in the settlement. The parties filed a revised settlement agreement on September 26, 2024. Judge Wilken granted preliminary approval to this revised settlement agreement on October 7, 2024, starting the notice period.

The next key date is January 31, 2025, which is the deadline for class members to file objections to the settlement. Several parents and athletes have filed informal letters asking the court to push the parties to phase in roster limits so that those on rosters (particularly non-scholarship walk-ons) do not lose their spots. Other objections in the vein of those filed surrounding the preliminary approval hearing are likely.

Key Upcoming Dates

Latest Event: Two more letters were filed: (1) University of Illinois law professor Michael LeRoy filed a letter to the docket arguing for a limited form of collective bargaining; and (2) Colorado football walk-on Camden Dempsey filed a letter on behalf of 92 Big 12 athletes asking to grandfather roster limits. (1/21/2025)

  • January 31, 2025: Deadline for class member exclusion and objection and close of claim period
  • March 3, 2025: Motion for Final Approval and Response to Objections due
  • April 7, 2025 at 10:00 AM PT: Final Approval Hearing

Important Case Documents

Description of the Case

This case is an antitrust challenge against the NCAA and "Power Five" Conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and Pac-12) focused on so-called "Alston Awards": Academic Achievement Awards of up to $5,980 per academic year that have been provided by many member institutions following the Supreme Court's decision in NCAA v. Alston. This lawsuit claims that athletes who played prior to the Alston decision were deprived the opportunit to negotiate for and receive these academic achievement awards.

This is a class action lawsuit that includes all current and former NCAA athletes who competed on a Division I athletic team after April 1, 2019. Representative lead plaintiffs are former Oklahoma State football player Chuba Hubbard and former Oregon and Auburn track and field athlete Keira McCarrell.

(No. 23-cv-01593, N.D. Cal., Judge Claudia Wilken, filed April 4, 2023)

Current Status

The plaintiffs have filed a motion for settlement, including this case as part of the broader In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (House v. NCAA) settlement. This individual case has been stayed while that settlement is being considered.

Latest Event: The plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys fees (12/17/2024)

Key Upcoming Dates

  • See In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (House v. NCAA)

Important Case Documents

Description of the Case

This case is an antitrust challenge against the NCAA and "Power Five" Conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and Pac-12) that broadly attacks NCAA prohibitions on "pay-for-play", arguing that athletes should have a right to negotiate direct compensation from member institutions that is tied to their athletic performance.

This is a class action lawsuit that includes two classes: (1) a "Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Class" that includes all athletes that competed on a Division I athletic team after December 7, 2023; and (2) a "Damages Class" that includes all athletes that competed on a "Power Five" (plus Notre Dame) Division I basketball or football team after December 7, 2019. Representative lead plaintiffs are former Duke football player DeWayne Carter, current Texas Christian basketball player Sedona Prince, and current Stanford soccer player Nya Harrison.

(No. 23-cv-06325, N.D. Cal., Judge Claudia Wilken, filed December 7, 2023)

Current Status

The plaintiffs have filed a motion for settlement, including this case as part of the broader In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (House v. NCAA) settlement. This individual case has been stayed while that settlement is being considered.

Latest Event: The case was consolidated into the broader House v. NCAA settlement and stayed while that settlement is under review.

Key Upcoming Dates

  • See In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (House v. NCAA)

Important Case Documents

Description of the Case

This case is an antitrust challenge against the NCAA and "Power Five" Conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and Pac-12) that broadly attacks NCAA prohibitions on "pay-for-play", arguing that athletes should have a right to negotiate direct compensation (in the form of salaries) from member institutions that is tied to their athletic performance. Of note: while this case was originally targeted specifically towards football and men's and women's basketball players for "Power Five" Conference teams (plus Notre Dame), it was later expanded to all sports through Division I.

This is a class action lawsuit with one plaintiff class: All persons who worked as athletes for any Division I athletic team starting at the beginning of the statute of limitations period (as to be defined by the court). The original representative lead plaintiff was Alex Fontenot, a football player at the University of Colorado. Fontenot would later be joined by former Colorado women's basketball player Mya Hollingshed, former Vanderbilt soccer and football player Sarah Fuller, and current Colorado golfer Tucker Clark.

(No. 23-cv-03076, D. Colo., Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney, filed November 20, 2023)

Current Status

Due to the House settlement's overlap of the allegations made in this case, the parties filed a joint stipulation stating their agreement to stay this case until that matter is resolved (one way or another). In exchange, the defendants agreed to not object to the plaintiffs' filing of an initial complaint that includes additional pliantiffs who opt out of (or are otherwise not covered by) the House settlement if the House settlement is given final approval.

Latest Event: Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak granted the parties' joint stipulation. (10/23/2024)

Key Upcoming Dates

  • See In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (House v. NCAA)

Description of the Case

This case is an antitrust challenge against the NCAA and "Power Five" Conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and Pac-12) challenging the NCAA's restrictions on the number of athletic scholarships that can be offered per team. Specifically, the litigatin attacks NCAA Bylaws 15.5.3, 15.5.4 (baseball) and 15.5.7 (hockey) and the scholarship limits placed on teams playing those two sports at the Division I level.

This is a class action lawsuit with one plaintiff class: All persons recieved a partial athletic scholarship in baseball or hockey who is or was a member of one of the Power Five Conferences or Notre Dame starting at the beginning of the statute of limitations period (as to be defined by the court). The representative lead plaintiff is former Texas Christian baseball player Riley Cornelio.

(No. 24-cv-02178, D. Colo., Judge Daniel D. Domenico, filed August 6, 2024)

Current Status

Due to the House settlement's overlap of the allegations made in this case, the parties filed a joint stipulation stating their agreement to stay this case until that matter is resolved (one way or another).

Latest Event: Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell extended the deadline for the parties to file a Proposed Scheduling Order for the case until "fourteen days after the Northern District of California court resolves the parties' forthcoming final approval motion" for the House settlement. (10/22/2024)

Key Upcoming Dates

  • See In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (House v. NCAA)

Important Case Documents

Description of the Case

This lawsuit was filed by the attorney general of South Dakota and the South Dakota Board of Regents (on behalf of South Dakota State University and the University of South Dakota) challenging the NCAA's plan to pay for the $2.8 billion damages portion of the House settlement. According to the plaintiffs, of the $2.8 billion that the NCAA will pay to athletes in the House settlement, "$1.15 billion will be paid from the NCAA’s reserves and expense reductions while $1.65 billion will be paid 'by reducing disbursements it makes to conferences from its Final Four Men’s Basketball revenues by an average of 20 percent over the next ten years.'" The plaintiffs claim that this is "grossly unfair to non-Power 4 schools", arguing that Power 4 schools "are responsible for 90% (if not 100%) of the damages covered by the settlement" yet are only stuck with "50% or more of the cost." The plaintiffs allege that the plan is "a breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, inequitable and a violation of the NCAA’s rules, bylaws and constitution."

(No. 05Civ24-000320, Third Judicial Circuit Court, Brookings County, South Dakota, filed September 10, 2024) (state case)

(No. 24-cv-04189, D. South Dakota, Judge Karen E. Schreier, filed October 9, 2024) (federal case)

Current Status

The NCAA moved the case from state court (where it was originally filed) to federal court on October 9, 2024. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case back to South Dakota state court, arguing that the case does not have the federal questions needed for a federal court to assert subject matter jurisdiction. The case is now awaiting an order by the court on whether the case will remain in federal court or be remanded back to state court. In the meantime, the NCAA has moved to stay proceedings in the case pending the Supreme Court's decision in Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, a case on whether a plaintiff can amend their complaint to remove a claim that arguably creates federal question jurisdiction to avoid removal to federal court (as South Dakota did in their amended complaint). South Dakota has opposed this motion, arguing that time of the essence and that Wullschleger is not likely to be decided in the NCAA's favor.

Latest Event: The South Dakota attorney general's office filed a notice of the Supreme Court's decision in Royal Canin v. Wullschleger, noting that the Court held that when a plaintiff amends their removed complaint to omit federal questions the federal court must remand the case back to state court. This hypothetically bolsters the state's argument that their case should go back to state court (1/15/2025)

Key Upcoming Dates

  • N/A (awaiting judge's ruling on motion to stay the motion to remand)
Amateurism and Eligibility Challenges

Description of the Case

This lawsuit filed by Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia seeks a declaration that the combination of NCAA Bylaw 12.8 (granting four years of eligibility in five years regardless of whether the athlete is playing sports or playing at a non-NCAA school) and NCAA Bylaw 12.02.6 (defining intercollegiate competition as including competition at both four-year and two-year institutions) is illegal under antitrust law. Pavia claims that the fact that the rule subtracts one year of NCAA eligibility while players are playing at junior colleges has no procompetitive basis and deprives athletes from time where higher NIL earnings are available to them, i.e., while they are playing at Division I four-year institutions. Pavia claims that the NCAA's implementation of a COVID extension year that allowed some athletes to play five years in six calendar years shows that there is no real justification behind Bylaw 12.8

(Original District Court Filing: No. 24-cv-01336, M.D. Tenn., Chief Judge William L. Campbell, Jr., filed November 8, 2024)

(Apppeal of Preliminary Injunction: No. 24-6153, 6th Cir., filed December 26, 2024)

Current Status

On December 18, 2024, Judge Campbell granted Pavia's motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering the NCAA to allow him to play in 2025. The NCAA has filed an appeal of this ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, though they also (outside of court) granted a blanket waiver that will allow Pavia and all other athletes who played at non-NCAA Division I schools prior to enrollment at an NCAA Division I school an extra year of eligibility if they would exhaust their eligibility this year.

Latest Event: The parties filed a joint motion to stay district court proceedings until the appeal is decided. (1/21/2025)

Key Upcoming Dates

  • February 19, 2025: Appellant (NCAA) Opening Brief Due
  • March 21, 2025: Appellee (Pavia) Brief Due

Description of the Case

This lawsuit challenges the NCAA's bylaws that make college athletes who play in the semipro junior league Canadian Hockey League (CHL) ineligible for NCAA competition. Specifically, the suit claims that the combination of NCAA bylaws 12.2.3.2 ("An individual shall not be eligible for intercollegiate athletics in a sport if the individual ever competed on a professional team"), 12.2.3.2.1 ("In sports other than men’s ice hockey and skiing, before initial full-time collegiate enrollment, an individual may compete on a professional team...") and 12.2.3.2.3 ("Ice hockey teams in the United States and Canada, classified by the Canadian Hockey Association as major junior teams, are considered professional teams under NCAA legislation") constitute an illegal boycott against current and former CHL players.

This is a class action lawsuit with one class that includes "anyone who either (i) played in the CHL at any point between August 12, 2020, and the present, or (ii) attended college at any point between August 12, 2020, and the present after playing in the CHL." The original representative lead plaintiff is Rylan Masterson, a hockey player who played two exhibition games as a sixteeen-year-old in 2022 for the CHL's Windsor Spitfires and was subsequently declared ineligible for Division I NCAA competition. He was joined in an amended complaint by Nicholas Avakyan, a 20-year-old hockey player who played three seasons in the CHL. Avakyan has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction (without Masterson) that seeks to force the NCAA to declare him eligible for NCAA competition immediately.

(No. 24-cv-00754, W.D.N.Y., Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., filed August 12, 2024)

Current Status

In mid-October 2024, the NCAA Division I Council introduced a proposal that would change the bylaws challenged by the plaintiffs to allow former CHL (and equivalent) players to play in the NCAA so long as they were not paid more than "actual nad necessary expenses" as part of their pre-enrollment participation in semipro or professional leagues. The proposal was voted on and passed on November 7, 2024. The parties are currently negotiating whether the rule change resolves the issues raised by Masterson and Avakyan or whether the lawsuit would need to continue.

Latest Event: The defendant schools and NCAA filed a motion to dismiss the case. (1/15/2025)

Key Upcoming Dates

  • February 28, 2025: Deadline for the plaintiffs to respond to the NCAA and schools' motions to dismiss
  • March 21, 2025: Deadline for the schools and NCAA to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss

Description of the Case

In this case, current University of North Carolina tennis player Reese Brantmeier and current Texas tennis player Maya Joint have challenged the NCAA's ban on individual athletes' ability to receive prize money for outside athletic competitions beyond "actual and necessary" expenses. As an example, Brantmeier claims in her complaint that she was forced to forfeit over $35,000 in prize money earned during the 2021 U.S. Open and other tournaments in 2021 and that the NCAA refused to certify her as an amateur for the 2022-23 school year, challenging some of her submitted expenses (e.g., a scanner to track and catalog receipts and a hotel room shared with her mother) as "unnecessary." She claims that under antitrust law there is no longer any justification for the restriction given that athletes in other sports like football and basketball are able to earn money from the participation in their sports through NIL deals.

This is a class action lawsuit seeking both injunctive relief (an injunction against the rule) and money damages. As of the filing of the amended complaint in November 2024, the defined class includes all current and former (within the five year statute of limitations) Division I tennis athletes, rather than the originally pled class of all Division I individual sport athletes. The original representative plaintiff is University of North Carolina tennis player Reese Brantmeier. Brantmeier was joined in the lawsuit by current Texas tennis player Maya Joint in the amended complaint. The original case also included a declaration by Nebraska bowler Jillian Martin, but she was not included in the more narrow drawing of the case in the amended complaint.

(No. 24-cv-00238, M.D.N.C., Judge Catherine C. Eagles, filed March 18, 2024)

Current Status

On October 7, 2024, Judge Eagles denied Brantmeier's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that Brantmeier had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Per Judge Eagles, while Brantmeier "has affirmatively shown that significant sums of prize money are available for a few elite athletes in a few Individual Sports" like tennis and bowling, she has not shown that the prize money restrictions have an anticompetitive effect on the individual athlete market generally.

In response, Brantmeier withdrew her motion for class certification and filed an amended complaint, adding Maya Joint and narrowing the proposed plaintiff class to just include tennis athletes. The NCAA responded to this amended complaint with an answer and not a motion to dismiss, so the case will proceed to discovery and trial.

Latest Event: The court filed an amended scheduling order (1/2/2025)

Key Upcoming Dates

  • February 7, 2025: Deadline for plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification
  • March 28, 2025: Deadline for the NCAA to respond to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
  • May 5, 2025: Deadline for the plaintiffs to file a reply in support of their motion for class certification
  • July 7, 2025: Hearing on Class Certification Motion
  • December 15, 2025: Deadline to file dispositive motions (i.e., motions for summary judgement)
  • January 16, 2026: Deadline to file responses to dispositive motions
  • January 30, 2026: Deadline to file replies to responses to dispositive motions
  • Summer 2026: Trial on date to be determined
NIL-Related Litigation

Description of the Cases

This group of lawsuits are filed by several groups of former star football and men's basketball players and attack the NCAA's longstanding ban on college athletes earning compensation for the use of their NIL in game broadcasts and highlights. Specifically, the suits claim that the NIL waivers that athletes used to sign as part of their national letters of intent were the product of an anticompetitive environment (as athletes could not go to other schools who might not require such an agreement), and that but for that waiver, athletes would be able to negotiate for the continued use of their NIL in game broadcast replays and highlights in NCAA-related media (i.e., on their website and on YouTube). Each are based in antitrust law, with the two cases that are filed in state courts, Bailey (NC) and Bush (CA), alleging violations of the relevant state antitrust law.

One key issue with these cases will be the statute of limitations, a legal concept that requires lawsuits to be filed within a certain period after the alleged harm. For antitrust law, the statute of limitations is four years, which explains why the House v. NCAA case and settlement class is limited to athletes who played after June 16, 2016 (as House was filed on June 15, 2020). Based on their complaint, it appears that the plaintiffs will counter this affirmative defense based on the continuing harm doctrine, arguing that the continued use of their NIL through the showing and sale of old game highlights continues to violate their rights.

Each of these lawsuits are class action lawsuits that seek to include (in various forms) all NCAA Division I athletes who participated in NCAA sports prior to June 15, 2016, which is the cutoff date for athletes part of the House v. NCAA case and settlement, and whose NIL has been used or licensed for commercial purposes by the NCAA, the Power Five conferences, or Veritone (an NCAA contractor tasked with archiving footage). Representative plaintiffs for each case include:

  • Chalmers v. NCAA: Former Kansas basketball players Mario Chalmers and Sherron Collins, former Arizona basketball players Jason Terry, Eugene Edgerson, A.J. Bramlett, and Jason Stewart, former UConn basketball players Ryan Boatright, DeAndre Daniels, Alex Oriakhi, and Roscoe Smith, former Providence basketball player Vincent Council, former Missouri basketball player Matt Pressey, former Providence and Gonzaga basketball player Gerard Coleman, former Kent State basketball player Justin Greene, former Providence and East Tennessee basketball player Ron Giplaye, and former Arizona State basketball player James Cunningham.
  • Bailey v. NCAA: Former NC State basketball players Thurl Bailey, Alvin Battle, Walt Densmore, Tommy Dinardo, Terry Gannon, George McClain, Cozell McQueen, Walter Procter, Harold Thompson, and Mike Warren.
  • Robinson v. NCAA: Former Michigan football players Denard Robinson, Braylon Edwards, Michael Martin, and Shawn Crable.
  • Bush v. NCAA: Former Southern Cal football player Reggie Bush.
  • Pryor v. NCAA: Former Ohio State football player Terrelle Pryor.
  • Chalmers v. NCAA

    (No. 24-cv-05008, S.D.N.Y., Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, filed July 1, 2024)

    Current Status

    In Chalmers, the plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, in part to clarify and highlight their reliance on the continuing harm doctrine to beat the statute of limitations affirmative defense. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the claims are time-barred, are barred by the O'Bannon and Alston settlement released, and are not based on a cognizable property right.

    Latest Event: Attorneys for the ACC asked for and received permission to audit the upcoming oral arguments by telephone (1/21/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • January 27, 2025 at 2:00 PM: Oral Argument on the NCAA's Motion to Dismiss

    Important Case Documents

    Bailey v. NCAA

    (No. 2024CVS17715-910, N.C. Super. Ct., filed June 10, 2024)

    Current Status

    In Bailey, the NCAA has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims are time-barred, are not based in a cognizable right under antitrust law, and are covered by the O'Bannon judgment back in 2015. The NCAA has also filed a motion to stay proceedings until Chalmers is decided by the Southern District of New York.

    Note: Because this is a state court case that must be manually checked, updates in this case will be less regular and often delayed.

    Latest Known Event: The Chalmers court granted the defendants' motion for an extension of time to file a new motion to dismiss and set a new schedule (11/26/2024)

    Important Case Documents

    Robinson v. NCAA

    (No. 24-cv-12355, E.D. Mich., Judge Terrence G. Berg, filed September 10, 2024)

    Current Status

    The plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and a motion to certify the class. The court is now awaiting a response to that amended complaint, and has suspended all other deadlines (including the plaintiffs' motion for class certification) until after the resolution of the defendants' incoming motions to dismiss.

    Latest Event: The Big Ten Network and Big Ten Conference/NCAA filed motions to dismiss, and the Big Ten/NCAA filed a motion to transfer venues or stay the case pending the resolution of the Chalmers case (1/14/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • March 14, 2025: Deadline for the plaintiffs to respond to the defendants' response to the amended complaint
    • April 14, 2025: Deadline for the defendants to file replies in support of their response to the amended complaint

    Important Case Documents

    Bush v. NCAA

    (No. 24STCV24615, Cal. Super. Ct. (Los Angeles), filed September 23, 2024)

    Current Status

    The plaintiff filed his complaint and the court set a preliminary schedule.

    Latest Event: Bush filed a notice of posting of jury fees (11/15/2024)

    Note: Because this is a state court case that must be manually checked, updates in this case will be less regular and often delayed. Document uploads will also be less frequent due to the prohibitive cost of the California court system ($1 per page up to 5 pages + $0.40 per page beyond that vs. $0.10 per page in the federal courts).

    Important Case Documents

    Pryor v. NCAA

    (No. 24-cv-04019, S.D. Ohio, Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison, filed October 4, 2024)

    Current Status

    The plaintiff filed his complaint, and each defendant has filed motions to dismiss. Ohio State claims sovereign immunity, the NCAA and Big Ten claims that the plaintiff's claims are time barred, barred by the Alston and Keller settlement releases, and are not based in a valid antitrust injury, and Learfield claims that the plaintiff's claims are barred by the Noerr-Pennington state action doctrine due to their relationship with Ohio State. The NCAA and Big Ten have also filed a motion to transfer venues to the Southern District of New York (to be heard alongside the Chalmers case) or to stay the case until Chalmers has been resolved.

    Latest Event: Ohio State, the NCAA/Big Ten, and Learfield each filed separate motions to dismiss. (1/3/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • February 3, 2025: Deadline for the plaintiffs to respond to the defendants' response to the complaint
    • February 17, 2025: Deadline for the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs' response to the defendants' response to the complaint

    Important Case Documents

    Description of the Case

    The attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia filed this lawsuit challenging the NCAA's NIL rules barring athletes from negotiating NIL deals with collectives and boosters prior to enrollment at an institution. The attorneys general claim that doing so restraints athletes' market power for NIL deals without justification.

    Of note, this case has since been joined by the attorneys general of Florida, New York, and the District of Columbia.

    (No. 24-CV-00033, E.D. Tenn., Judge Clifton L. Corker, filed January 31, 2024)

    Current Status

    On February 23, 2024, Judge Corker granted the states' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the states would be likely to win on the merits and that the plaintiffs (specifically the athletes they represent as parens patriae) suffer actual and imminent irreparable harm from the implementation of the NCAA rules in question. The court found that the rule's "suppression of negotiating leverage and the consequential lack of knowledge" of an athlete's NIL potential resulting from that suppression constitutes significant harm, and that "encouraging free and fair price competition in the NIL market by enjoining the NCAA's NIL-recruiting ban will serve the public interest."

    Latest Event: The court granted the NCAA's motion to extend the deadline for them to respond to the plaintiffs' amended complaint based on settlement talks surrounding the House settlement, and scheduled a status conference for January 23 (1/14/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • January 20, 2024: Deadline for the NCAA to respond to the amended complaint
    • January 23, 2024 at 1:30 PM: Telephonic Status Conference

    Description of the Case

    This lawsuit is the aftermath of the University of Florida's recruitment of quarterback Jaden Rashada, who now plays for the University of Georgia. Rashada alleges that he was induced to flip his commitment from the University of Miami (and forgo an alleged $9.5 million NIL deal with Miami boosters) based on a promise that Florida's NIL collective, The Gator Collective, would sign him to a $13.85 million deal if he signed with Florida instead. Once Rashada signed his national letter of intent, those involved with his recruitment at Florida backed out of this commitment and claimed that no such promise was ever made.

    Rashada has sued four defendants: Florida head football coach William "Billy" Napier, former Florida Director of Player Engagement & NIL Marcus Castro-Walker, Florida booster Hugh Hathcock, and Hathcock's company, Velocity Automotive Solutions.

    (No. 24-cv-00219, N.D. Fla., Judge M. Casey Rodgers, filed May 21, 2024)

    Current Status

    Each party has filed a motion to dismiss the case, and Rashada has responded to those motions. The court held a hearing on these motions on December 18, 2024, and the matter is now in the hands of Judge Rodgers.

    Latest Event: The court heard oral arguments on the defendants' motions to dismiss. (12/18/2024)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • N/A (awaiting the court's decisions on the pending Motions to Dismiss)

    Description of the Case

    This case involves a lawsuit by Louisiana State women's basketball player Last-Tear Poa -- an Australian national -- against the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) after the agency's denial of Poa's P-1A visa. International college athletes currently cannot enter into NIL deals on F-1 student visas (which do not permit off-campus and non-curricular work), and as such some athletes have sought P-1A visas (visas for internationally recognized athletes) instead. According to Poa's attorney, Poa's request was denied because (1) her proposed NIL activities were not seen as "ancillary promotional activities" and are unrelated to her status as an athlete, (2) her NIL representation agreement is not an agency agreement; and (3) she cannot attend school on a P-1A visa. Poa is challenging this ruling and the overall limits on P-1A visa access for college athletes.

    Note: This docket is sealed, so access to documents and deeper specifics on the case will be limited.

    (No. 24-cv-00887, M.D. La., filed October 24, 2024)

    Current Status

    A complaint has been filed, with responsive pleadings to come.

    Latest Event: The court granted the defendants' ex parte motion asking the court to extend the deadline for them to file their responsive pleadings. (12/18/2024)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • January 24, 2025: Deadline for the defendants to file an answer or otherwise respond to the plaintiff's complaint
    • February 27, 2025 at 9:00 AM: Telephone scheduling conference

    Important Case Documents

    • Unavailable (sealed).
    College Athletes as Employees

    Description of the Case

    The plaintiffs in this lawsuit claim that they are employees and thus must be paid at the federal minimum wage (including time-and-a-half overtime) in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (9 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.) and similar state wage-and-hour law. They claim that their performance as athletes for universities constitutes work for those universities and thus creates an employment relationship.

    This is a class action lawsuit involving several different classes: one FLSA collective action class for all Division I athletes in all sports and all genders within the FLSA statute of limitations and other classes for athletes who competed for universities in several different states (PA, NY, CT, NC, OR, LA, AZ, and IN). Representative lead plaintiffs are former Villanova football player Ralph "Trey" Johnson, former Fordham swimming and diving athlete Stephanie Kerkeles, former Fordham baseball player Nicholas Labella, former Sacred Heart tennis player Claudia Ruiz, former Cornell soccer player Jacob Willebeek-Lemair, former Lafayette tennis player Alexa Cooke, former Oregon track-and-field athlete Rhesa Foster, former Tulane football player Zachary Harris, former Notre Dame lacrosse player Matthew Schmidt, former Arizona softball player Tamara Schoen Statman, former Purdue softball player Gina Snyder, former Duke track-and-field athlete Esteban Suarez, and former Marist lacrosse player Liam Walsh.

    (Original District Court Filing: No. 19-cv-05230, E.D. Penn., Judge John R. Padova, filed November 6, 2019)

    (Appeal of Denial of Motion to Dismiss: No. 22-1223, 3d Cir., Judges Restrepo, Porter, and McKee, filed February 8, 2022, closed August 2, 2024)

    Current Status

    In July 2024, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion finding that some college athletes can and should be considered employees under the FLSA. In doing so, they developed a four-part test for determining whether particular athletes should be considered employees. Under this test, college athletes may be employees under the FLSA when they (a) perform services for another party, (b) "necessarily and primarily for the other party's benefit," (c) under that party's control or right of control, and (d) in return for "express" or "implied" compensation or "in-kind benefits."

    Since then, the plaintiffs have filed their third amended complaint, which is now targeted towards the new test developed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in distinguishing between college athletes who should be considered employees and college athletes who merely 'play' their sport without a working relationship.

    Latest Event: The court granted several pro hac vice motions, allowing the filing attorneys to practice in the jurisdiction (11/27/2024)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • February 7, 2025: Deadline for the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs' amended complaint

    Description of the Case

    In this NLRB case based on a charge by the National College Players Association (NCPA) and litigated by the general counsel's office of the NLRB, the NLRB general counsel claims that the scholarship and non-scholarship walk-on players of the University of Southern California (USC) football and men's and women's basketball teams are employees of Southern Cal, the Pac-12 Conference*, and the NCAA as joint employers. The general counsel bases this claim based on the services provided by the players to the university, conference, and NCAA, and control the three parties collectively assert over "many aspects of the Players’ labor and services," including, for example, "their work hours, the hiring/recruiting process, supervision and discipline, limitations on Players’ income, eligibility requirements, transfer restrictions, mandatory testing requirements, interviews and social media, academics, attire, vehicles, curfews, bed checks, and Name, Image and Likeness limitations."

    * Note: The case was brought before USC's transition from the Pac-12 Conference to the Big Ten Conference, so the responding party is still the Pac-12 Conference. The Pac-12 Conference has argued that there is no longer a live controversy against them for this reason, and that claims must now be directed towards the Big Ten, though no such measures have been taken as of this writing.

    (No. 31-CA-290326, NLRB Region 31, filed February 8, 2022, charge filed May 18, 2023)

    Current Status

    Hearings were held before NLRB administrative judge Eleanor Laws on December 18-20, 2023; January 22-February 2, 2024; February 26-29, 2024; and April 16-18, 2024. The parties then each submitted post-hearing briefs on July 31-August 1, 2024. The parties are now awaiting decision by ALJ Laws.

    However, the NCPA filed a motion on January 10, 2025, asking to withdraw the case, citing the revenue sharing components of the House settlement. ALJ Laws has asked all involved parties to respond by January 23 if they do not want the case dismissed.

    Latest Event: ALJ Eleanor Laws filed an order to show cause, asking any parties to respond by January 23 if they feel the case should not be withdrawn (1/10/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • N/A (awaiting ALJ decision)

    Description of the Case

    The College Basketball Players Association has filed a charge against the University of Notre Dame, alleging that the employer has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by classfying college athletes as "student-athletes" rather than employees.

    (No. 25-CA-340413, NLRB Region 25, filed April 18, 2024)

    Current Status

    A signed charge has been filed by the CBPA, but the NLRB has not taken any action to pursue it, presumably waiting for the results of the more-advanced USC case.

    Latest Event: A signed charge against the employer was filed by the CBPA. (4/18/2024)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • N/A (awaiting NLRB action)
    Title IX Cases

    Description of the Case

    In this case, several current and former women's volleyball players (along with one former coach) are challenging the Mountain West Conference's transgender inclusion policy. They initially argued that a trans woman athlete who plays for San Jose State's women's volleyball team should have been declared ineligible to travel with and complete with the team at the Mountain West Conference Volleyball Championships on November 27-30, 2024, but this request for relief was denied. Some San Jose State plaintiffs also claim that the policy has deprived them of equal opportunities under Title IX because they have lost opportunities to play due to the trans woman's allowed inclusion. The (non-San Jose State) plaintiffs also claim that they have been illegally retaliated against for their boycotts by being required to forfeit matches against San Jose State. The plaintiffs base their claims on Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and contract theories (fraud and misrepresentation).

    Plaintiffs include current San Jose State volleyball player Brooke Slusser, former San Jose State volleyball players Alyssa Sugai and Elle Patterson, current University of Nevada, Reno volleyball players Sia Liilii and Nicanora Clarke, current Utah State volleyball player Kaylie Ray, current University of Wyoming volleyball players Macey Boggs, Sierra Grizzle, and Jordan Sandy, current Boise State volleyball players Katelyn Van Kirk and Kiersten Van Kirk, and San Jose State volleyball associate head coach Melissa Batie-Smoose. They are suing the Mountain West Conference, Mountain West commissioner Gloria Nevarez, San Jose State, two San Jose State athletic department directors, and San Jose State volleyball coach Todd Kress. Utah State University was also granted the right to intervene in the lawsuit as an intervenor-plaintiff after no party objected, but withdrew their complaint in intervention after the Mountain West Tournament. Following the tournament (and on appeal), Slusser (a graduating senior) was replaced as lead plaintiff by Katelyn Van Kirk (a freshman).

    (Original District Court Filing: No. 24-cv-03155, D. Colo., Judge S. Kato Crews, filed November 13, 2024)

    (Appeal of Denial of Emergency Motion: No. 24-1461, 10th Cir., filed November 25, 2024)

    Current Status

    Judge Crews denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction based on two primary findings. First, Judge Crews found that the plaintiffs could not overcome the high bar needed for an injunctive order that changes the status quo, as the Mountain West's transgender policy had been in place since 2022 with no challenges or complaints. Second, Judge Crews found that the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on transgender status also applies to Title IX, and as such the plaintiffs' Title IX-based theories arguing for decreased opportunities for women athletes "directly conflicts with Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination against trans individuals." Judge Crews also rejected the First Amendment claim, and found that the balance of harms favors preserving the status quo. While the plaintiffs filed an emergency appeal, it too was rejected, with the appellate court agreeing with Judge Crews that the "late timing of the requested relief" warranted emergency action. Since then, Utah State has withdrawn their complaint in intervention, but the plaintiffs are continuing with the non-injunctive portions of their case. The plaintiffs had appealed this denial to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. While the defendants are seeking to dismiss the appeal as moot now that the tournament has been held, the plaintiffs disagree, arguing that the policy will continue to impact the plaintiffs who will continue to play in the Mountain West after this past season.

    Latest Event: The district court granted the defendants' motion asking for leave to file their forthcoming motion(s) to dismiss with excess pages and the parties' joint motion asking to give the plaintiffs additional time to respond to those motion(s) (1/15/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • January 29, 2025: Appellants' (Plaintiffs') Opening Briefs Due

    Description of the Case

    A group of female athletes at San Diego State University (SDSU) filed this Title IX lawsuit against their school arguing that SDSU has failed to provide female athletes on campus proportional athletic aid and proprotional treatment and benefits when compared to male athletes. The suit was filed in part as a response to SDSU cutting the varsity women's rowing team on campus. Additionally, the lawsuit was amended shortly after its initial filing to also include a retaliation claim based on a Zoom call held shortly after thelawsuit was filed where several plaintiffs on the track-and-field team were allegedly admonished for filing the lawsuit and threatened with removal from the team.

    This is a class action lawsuit involving all current, present, and future female athletes at SDSU from 2018-19 to the present who did not recieve proportional athletic aid and treatment and benefits. Representative lead plaintiffs are former SDSU rowers Madison Fisk, Raquel Castro, Greta Castrillon, Clare Botterill, Olivia Petrine, Helen Bauer, Natalie Figueroa, Kamryn Whitworth, Eleanor Davies, Alexa Dietz, and Laura Sulcs and current SDSU track-and-field athletes Maya Brosch, Carina Clark, Erica Grotegeer, Kaitlin Heri, Aisha Watt, and Sara Absten. Maya Brosch has motioned to be voluntarily dismissed from the lawsuit, though this is currently a point of contention as SDSU is insisting that she be dismissed from the lawsuit with prejudice (meaning that she would not be able to refile later).

    (No. 22-cv-00173, S.D. Cal., Judge Todd W. Robinson, filed February 7, 2022)

    Current Status

    The parties are currently engaged in discovery, with trial set for late April 2025. Of additional interest, two class members have sought to withdraw from the case without prejudice due to family issues. SDSU has opposed those motions, seeking to have the class members be withdrawn with prejudice, which would not allow them to reenter the case later.

    Latest Event: The plaintiffs filed a reply in their support to dismiss a plaintiff from the lawsuit without prejudice (1/15/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • January 29, 2025: Deadline for defendants' opposition to class certification and opposition to Plaintiffs Maya Brosch and Clare Botterill's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Without Prejudice
    • February 19, 2025: Deadline for plaintiffs' reply to defendants' opposition to class certification and opposition to Plaintiffs Maya Brosch and Clare Botterill's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Without Prejudice
    • February 28, 2025: Mandatory Settlement Conference Briefs Due
    • March 7, 2025 at 9:30 AM: Mandatory Settlement Conference
    • April 10, 2025 at 1:30 PM: Hearing Regarding Plaintiffs Maya Brosch and Clare Botterill's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Without Prejudice and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
    • May 12, 2025: Pretrial Motions Deadline
    • September 11, 2025 at 1:30 PM: Final Pretrial Conference

    Description of the Case

    The University of Oregon varsity beach volleyball and club women's rowing teams allege that the University of Oregon has discriminated against them in providing unequal resources between men's and women's teams on campus. In sum, the plaintiffs have three overarching claims: an equal treatment claim, an equal financial aid claim, and an equal opportunities to participate claim.

    Specific to the beach volleyball team, the plaintiffs claim that Oregon has subjected the team to dramatically disparate conditions, including having them play at a public park run by the city of Eugene with a bathroom with no stall doors (due to the city’s concerns about squatters and drug use) and only one small bench as seating for team members and/or spectators with the only available locker room facilities on campus two miles away. Additionally, the team claims that the university has repeatedly broken promises to remedy these conditions by building an on-campus facility. The team has compared these conditions to the array of amenities (including the availability of athletic scholarships) granted to men's teams like Oregon's football team to show that Oregon has not provided equal opportunities as required under Title IX. The beach volleyball team is arguing for increased travel funding, facility access, and NIL support to remedy the claimed disparity.

    Similarly, the rowing team claims that Oregon has not provided substantially proportional opportunities between male and female athletes on campus overall, arguing that Oregon should be required to elevate their team to a varsity level to remedy the claimed disparity.

    This is a class action lawsuit with classes for the beach volleyball plaintiffs (equal treatment claim, equal financial aid claim) and the rowing plaintiffs (equal opportunities to participate claim).

    (No. 23-cv-01806, D. Oregon, Judge Michael J. McShane, filed December 1, 2023)

    Current Status

    The University of Oregon has filed motions arguing that the case should be narrowed and/or dismissed on three grounds. First, the university argued in a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that some of the plaintiffs have graduated and/or left the team or university and thus do not have standing to argue for injunctive relief. Second, the university argued in a motion for partial summary judgment that claims for many of the plaintiffs were not filed in time under the requisite statute of limitations for Title IX claims. Third, the university argued in a motion for judgment on the pleadings that the plaintiffs improperly only compare the beach volleyball team to Oregon's football team (rather than comparing men's and women's sports as a whole) and that the plaintiffs' NIL-based Title IX theories are unsupported by Title IX precedent. The defendants responded in opposition to these motions on November 7, 2024.

    Latest Event: Judge McShane issued an order clarifying that the plaintiffs are allowed to interview non-managerial UO employees as long as they disclose: (1) their representative capacity; (2) their reason for the contact; (3) the individual’s right to refuse to be interviewed; and (4) the individual’s right to have their own counsel present. (1/16/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • January 31, 2025: Deadline for the University of Oregon to reply to the plaintiffs' responses in opposition to their motions to dismiss and/or narrow the case
    • April 28, 2025: Deadline for discovery to be completed
    • May 19, 2025: Deadline for expert witness disclosures
    • June 12, 2025 (or 60 days after the court rules on the defendant's motions): Deadline for the plaintiffs to file a motion to certify the class
    • July 11, 2025 (or 30 days after the motion for class certification is filed): Deadline for the University to respond to the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class (if filed)
    • July 15, 2025: Deadline for expert witness discovery (reports, interrogatories, and depositions)
    • August 11, 2025 (or 30 days after the motion for class certification is filed): Deadline for the plaintiffs to file a reply to the university's response to the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class (if filed)
    • September 15, 2025: Deadline for either or both parties to file dispositive motions (i.e., motions for summary judgment)

    Description of the Case

    Two female athletes at the University of Kentucky filed this Title IX and Fourteenth Amendment lawsuit alleging that Kentucky has failed to provide equitable varsity athletic opportunites for women. The plaintiffs seek to force Kentucky to add women's varsity teams in lacrosse, field hockey, and/or in equestrian sports to comply with Title IX.

    This is a class action lawsuit involving all current, present, and future female athletes at Kentucky who did not recieve proportional athletic aid and treatment and benefits. The lead plaintiffs are two former UK students who expressed interest in one or more of the three sports: Elizabeth Niblock and Ala Hassan.

    (Appeal: No. 24-6060, 6th Circuit, filed November 26, 2024)

    (Original Filing: No. 19-cv-00394, Judge Karen Caldwell, E.D. Ky., filed September 25, 2019)

    Current Status

    After a three-day trial, Judge Caldwell issued a conclusions of law and findings of fact rejecting the university's motion to reconsider a previous ruling that the Title IX test was still good law, but found in favor of Kentucky based on that three-part test. She found that while Kentucky could not count cheer and dance teams towards compliance and thus failed the first two prongs of the test (Substantial Proportionality and History of Expansion), the plaintiffs failed to show sufficient unmet interest at the school in women's field hockey, lacrosse, or equestrian teams. A key finding by the court was that not enough interested students left their contact information on a survey sent out by the plaintiffs, and that "UK ccannot form a new team based on anonymous responses." The court also found that neither the women's club lacrosse nor field hockey teams were in a place where they could compete at the varsity level.

    The plaintiffs have appealed this finding to the Sixth Circuit. The specific basis of their appeal is unknown at this time.

    Latest Event: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the plaintiffs' motion for an extension to file their opening brief (1/8/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • February 21, 2025: Appellant (Plaintiffs) Brief Due
    • March 24, 2025: Appellee (University) Brief Due

    Description of the Case

    A group of female athletes filed this lawsuit attacking the NCAA's Transgender Eligibility Policies, claiming that the policies are discriminatory towards women and deprive women of equal opportunity in violation of Title IX by allowing transgender women born as males to participate in NCAA women's sports. The plaintiffs in particular focus on the NCAA's allowing former University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas -- a transgender woman -- to compete in and win the gold medal in the women's 500-yard freestyle event at the 2022 NCAA Division I Swimming and Diving Championship hosted by Georgia Tech.

    The lawsuit is led by six athletes (one proceeding anonymously) who participated in the 2022 NCAA Swimming and Diving Championship including former Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines, NC State swimmer Kylee Alons, North Carolina swimmer Grace Countie, Virginia Tech swimmer Reka Gyorgy, and Kentucky swimmer Kaitlynn Wheeler. They are joined by thirteen current athletes including Arkansas track-and-field athlete Ainsley Erzen, Kentucky tennis player Ellie Eades, Texas A&M swimmer Ellis Fox, San Jose State volleyball player Brooke Slusser, Cedarville University volleyball player Nanea Merryman, and Roanoke College swimmers Lily Mullens, Carter Satterfield, Katie Blankinship, Susanna Price, Kate Pearson, Julianna Morrow, and Halle Schart.

    Defendants in the suit include the NCAA, the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (both as a unit and individually), the Georgia Tech Athletic Association, and Georgia Tech president Angel Cabrera.

    (No. 24-cv-01109, N.D. Georgia, Judge Tiffany R. Johnson, filed March 14, 2024)

    Current Status

    The plaintiffs have filed a second amended complaint. The defendants have each filed motions seeking to dismiss the case based on the allegations pled in this second amended complaint.

    Latest Event: The case was reassigned to Judge Tiffany R Johnson (1/6/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • January 24, 2025: Deadline for defendants to file reply briefs in support of motions to dismiss
    Miscellaneous Bylaw and Rule Challenges

    Description of the Case

    The plaintiffs in this case challenge NCAA Bylaw 11.01.6, which provides for restrictions on the compensation that can be provided to so-called volunteer coaches that exist as assistant coaches in sports other than football and basketball. The plaintiffs claim that but for the restriction they would have earned minimum wage and other benefits that are ordinarily provided to other coaches that do not have a volunteer designation. They claim the arrangement thus violates antitrust law.

    This is a class action lawsuit seeking to include all those who have worked as volunteer coaches for Division I programs within the statute of limitations. The Smart litigation focuses on baseball players, while Colon includes all other non-football and basketball sports. The representative lead plaintiffs for Smart are former Arkansas baseball coach Taylor Smart and former UC Davis baseball coach Michael Hacker. The representative lead plaintiffs for Colon are former Arizona State track and field coach Shannon Ray, current San Jose State softball coach Khala Taylor, former Virginia swimming and diving coach Peter Robinson, former Pittsburgh softball coach Katherine Sebbane, and former Fresno State women's volleyball coach Rudy Barajas. (Former Fresno State wrestling coach Joseph Colon, a representative lead plaintiff in that cases original filing, has since been dropped from the suit) The two cases have been consolidated into one joint action.

    (Smart: No. 22-cv-02125, E.D. Cal., Senior District Judge William B. Shubb, filed November 29, 2022)

    (Colon: No. 23-cv-00425, E.D. Cal., Senior District Judge William B. Shubb, filed March 21, 2023)

    Current Status

    On July 27, 2023, Judge Shubb denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the case and their motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of Indiana (where the NCAA is located). Since then, the parties have been engaged in pre-trial discovery. Additionally, the plaintiffs in each case have filed motions for class certification, with a hearing scheduled for March 3, 2025.

    Latest Event: The court signed the parties' joint stipulation and adopted their proposed briefing schedule for the defendants' Daubert motions. (1/7/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • January 31, 2025: Deadline for plaintiffs to file reply to NCAA's opposition to motion to certify the class and file oppositions to the NCAA's Daubert motions.
    • January 31, 2025: Deadline for the plaintiffs to file any motions to strike or exclude evidence, including expert testimony.
    • February 18, 2025: Deadline for the NCAA to respond to the plaintiffs' oppositions to their Daubert motions and file oppositions to any motions to strike filed by the plaintiffs.
    • February 26, 2025: Deadline for the plaintiffs to file any replies in support of any motions to strike or exclude evidence, including expert testimony.
    • March 3, 2025 at 1:30 PM PT: Hearing on motion to certify the class and on evidence motions.
    • April 4, 2025: Deadline for parties to file expert reports.
    • May 5, 2025: Deadline for parties to file expert rebuttal reports.
    • June 6, 2025: End of discovery period.
    • October 6, 2025 at 1:30 PM PT: Final Pretrial Conference.
    • December 9, 2025 at 9:00 AM: Start of trial.

    Description of the Case

    The plaintiffs in this case are challenging the Ivy League's longstanding practice of forbidding the grant of athlete scholarships to athletes playing for its member institutions, claiming that this practice constitutes a price fixing conspiracy violative of antitrust law. A key issue in this case is whether individual athletic conferences on their own can be seen as controlling a market on their own, or whether their competition with other conferences is sufficient to show that athletes have other options to sell their labor as college athletes.

    (Current Appeal: No. 24-02826, 2nd Circuit, filed October 22, 2024)

    (Original Filing: No. 23-cv-00305, D. Conn., Judge Alvin W. Thompson, filed March 7, 2023)

    Current Status

    On October 10, 2024, Judge Thompson granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding in notable part that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead the existince of a separate and distinct market for athletically and academically high-achieving students, nor as this market was not covered by other schools outside of the alleged price fixing conspiracy (e.g., Stanford, Duke, Notre Dame, and Rice). The plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Latest Event: The court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for a thirty-day extension to file their opening and response briefs and set a briefing schedule (12/4/2024)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • January 27, 2025: Due Date for Appellant's (Choh's) Opening Brief
    • March 3, 2025: Due Date for Appellee's (Ivies') Brief in Response
    • March 17, 2025: Due Date for Appellant's (Choh's) Reply Brief

    Description of the Case

    West Virginia basketball player RaeQuan Battle challenged the NCAA's (since rescinded) transfer policy, claiming that his hardship waiver that would have allowed his second transfer from Montana State to West Virginia was unjustly denied. He claims that the NCAA has violated his state tort and contract rights along with both federal and state antitrust law.

    Of Battle's twelve causes of action, one -- his claim that the NCAA applied their policy arbitrarily -- was dismissed as duplicative of his breach of contract claims. His claims to a declaratory judgment and a restraining order have also been dismissed as moot given the NCAA's change in policy since he filed his lawsuit. The rest of his claims remain in the lawsuit.

    (No. 23-cv-00101, N.D.W.V., District Judge John Preston Bailey, filed December 8, 2023)

    Current Status

    The parties are currently engaged in pretrial discovery, with trial set to begin on June 10, 2025 at 9:00 AM. However, the court granted a stay of proceedings after the parties indicated in late December 2024 that a settlement has been reached.

    Latest Event: The court granted the parties' joint motion for a stay based on the successful negotiation of a settlement (12/23/2024)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • (Deadlines listed are based on a prior scheduling order, but the court granted a 30-day stay on December 23, 2024, due to the parties' indication that a settlement has been reached.)
    • January 1, 2025: Discovery Due
    • February 28, 2025: Deadline for Dispositive Motions (e.g., Motion for Summary Judgment)
    • June 2, 2025 at 2:00 PM: Final Pretrial Conference
    • June 10, 2025 at 9:00 AM: Jury Selection and Jury Trial Begins
    Other Cases of Note

    Description of the Case

    (No. 21-cv-01091, M.D. Pa., Judge Matthew W. Brann, filed June 21, 2021)

    Vintage Brands is a company that designs apparel based on original designs that evoke the brands of various college football teams (including Penn State) but do not explicitly use their trademarks. Nevertheless, Penn State (along with various other universities) sued Vintage Brands and Sportswear (their manufacturer) for trademark infringment, arguing that the use and sale of art similar to university marks creates a likelihood of consumer confusion.

    Current Status

    The jury ruled in favor of Penn State on all counts, awarding them $25,000. While Sportswear had initially won a motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of direct infringement (arguing that they had no role in manufacturing the infringing goods), Judge Braunn granted Penn State's motion for reconsideration, allowing the issue to go to the jury. Since then, Penn State has filed motions to (1) add a permanent injunction barring Vintage Brand from continuing to use their trademarks to the judgment; and (2) for Vintage Brand to pay their attorneys fees.

    Latest Event: The defendants filed a motion asking the court to hold oral arguments on the issue of attorneys fees and the plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment to add an injunction (1/15/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • N/A (awaiting further scheduling/responses on pending motions)

    Description of the Case

    Prior to their decision to join the Mountain West Conference starting in 2026, Grand Canyon University had previously been committed to join the West Coast Conference. As such, the West Coast Conference filed this breach of contract lawsuit seeking Grand Canyon's payment of both the entrance and withdrawal fees the conference feels they are owed under their original agreement.

    (No. 24-cv-08933, N.D. Cal., Judge Charles R. Breyer, filed December 11, 2024)

    Current Status

    The West Coast Conference has filed their complaint. The case is awaiting initial responsive pleadings from Grand Canyon.

    Latest Event: The court rejected a GCU motion to file under seal (1/14/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • January 17, 2025: Deadline for Responses to GCU's Motion to Dismiss
    • January 24, 2025: Deadline for Replies to Responses to GCU's Motion to Dismiss
    • February 14, 2025 at 10:00 AM PT: Motion to Dismiss Hearing
    • March 12, 2025: Case Management Statement Due
    • March 19, 2025 at 1:30 PM: Case Management Conference (via Zoom)

    Important Case Documents

    Description of the Case

    On the heels of failed negotiations to extend a football scheduling agreement between the two conferences from 2024 to 2025, the Pac-12 Conference filed this suit against the Mountain West Conference challening a so-called "poaching fee" contained within the 2024 scheduling agreement contract that requires the Pac-12 to pay the Mountain West for any Mountain West conference members induced to leave the Mountain West for the Pac-12. As the Pac-12 has recruited five Mountain West schools to date into its ranks (Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, and Utah State), the Pac-12 owes $55 million to the Mountain West under this poaching penalty clause. The Pac-12 claims that the clause is anticompetitive in violation of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act and California Cartwright Antitrust Act and constitutes an unenforceable liquidated damages penalty clause, and is seeking a declaratory judgment as such.

    (No. 24-cv-06685, N.D. Cal., Judge Susan van Keulen, filed September 24, 2024)

    Current Status

    The defendant Mountain West Conference has filed a motion to dismiss the case. The parties will proceed with briefing that motion in advance of a March 25, 2025, hearing date.

    Latest Event: The Pac-12 Conference filed an opposition to the Mountain West's motion to dismiss (1/13/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • February 25, 2025: Mountain West Deadline to File a Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
    • February 25, 2025: Deadline for parties to meet and confer regarding initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan
    • March 11, 2025 at 9:30 AM PT: Initial Case Management Conference
    • March 25, 2025 at 10:00 AM PT: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss

    Description of the Case

    After Michigan State sparked controversy by playing a quiz video on their videoboard at a football game that included a question about the birthday of Adolf Hitler, the owner of the video sued Michigan State, arguing copyright violations, false light invasion, and violations of the Fifth Amendment takings clause.

    (No. 24-cv-00825, W.D. Mich., Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou, filed August 9, 2024)

    Current Status

    The plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and Michigan State has moved to dismiss this complaint, arguing in part that the university and included officials have sovereign immunity from the plaintiffs' claims.

    Latest Event: Michigan State filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss (1/16/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • April 29, 2025: Deadline for discovery to be completed
    • May 29, 2025: Deadline for dispositive motions
    • November 25, 2025: Settlement conference
    • December 22, 2025: Final pretrial conference
    • January 26, 2026: Trial start date

    Description of the Case

    This lawsuit was filed by a group of homeless disabled veterans against the United States Department of Veterans (VA) Affairs based on the VA's failure to provide adequate housing for those veterans in Los Angeles, CA, which they claim violates § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The VA has argued that they do not have sufficient space to build new housing. However, the plaintiffs have countered that the reason why the VA does not have adequate land for housing is that they have improperly leased portions of their West Los Angeles campus to a private school, an oil company, and -- of interest to those in college sports -- UCLA's baseball team for the purposes of their home field, Jackie Robinson Stadium.

    (Original District Court Filing: No. 22-cv-08357, C.D. Cal., Judge David O. Carter, filed November 15, 2022)

    (Appeal of Trial Order and Injunction: Nos. 24-6338 & 24-6603, 9th Cir., filed October 17, 2024)

    Current Status

    On October 11, 2024, Judge Carter found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the VA had violated § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide housing for the veteran plaintiffs. In doing so, he issued an injunction ordering all lessors of the VA land -- including UCLA Baseball -- to vacate the premises to allow the VA to begin construction of new veteran housing. On October 29, 2024, Judge Carter partially reversed course, granting UCLA's baseball team interim access to the facilities pending appeal. The VA and other affected parties did appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and the district court has stayed proceedings while that appeal is pending. The Ninth Circuit has expedited this appeal, notifying the parties that oral arguments will be held in April 2025.

    Latest Event: The Regents of the University of California filed their appellate opening brief (1/18/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • February 18, 2025: Appellate Answering Briefs Due
    • 21 days after answering briefs are served: Optional Appellate Reply Briefs Due
    • April 2025 (specific date TBD): Appellate Oral Arguments
    State Court Cases (information may not be up to date -- see explanation above)

    Description of the Case

    Florida State University filed a lawsuit against the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) in 2023, claiming that the conference's revenue distribution model is unfair and detrimental to the school's financial interests. FSU argued that the ACC's media rights agreement, which locks in revenue until 2036, places it at a significant disadvantage compared to other conferences, particularly with the growing revenue gap between the ACC and its competitors.

    (No. 23-CA-002860, Florida Circuit Court (Second Judicial Circuit - Leon County), filed December 22, 2023)

    Description of the Case

    Clemson University filed a lawsuit against the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) in 2023, challenging the conference's revenue-sharing model and the long-term media rights agreement. Like Florida State, Clemson argued that the ACC's revenue distribution is disproportionately benefiting smaller schools and leaving larger programs, such as Clemson, at a financial disadvantage.

    (No. 2024CP3900322, South Carolina Court of Common Pleas (Pickens County), filed March 19, 2024)

    Important Case Documents

    Description of the Case

    Former Utah State football coach Blake Anderson sued his employer alleging wrongful termination after he was fired "for cause" based on an alleged failure to properly respond when notified that one of his players sexually assaulted another student on campus, allegedly engaging in his own fact-finding mission rather than reporting it to USU officials.

    (Utah District Court (Cache County), filed November 20, 2024)

    Important Case Documents

    Description of the Case

    Utah State University and Colorado State University, two Mountain West Conference schools who have announced that they will be moving to the Pac-12 Conference, filed this lawsuit in an attempt to get out of the exit fee provision within the Mountain West bylaws. They claim that the Mountain West improperly changed its bylaws to remove the schools' voting rights after the schools announced their departure and that the fees themselves are improper penalties rather than reasonably calculated liquidated damages. After the suit was filed, Boise State University joined as a third plaintiff.

    (No. 2024CV33874, Colorado District Court (Denver County), filed December 16, 2024)

    Important Case Documents

    Description of the Case

    Texas attorney general Ken Paxton filed this lawsuit against the NCAA, claiming that their transgender athlete participation policy violates Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on its advertisement of women's sports.

    (Texas District Court (Lubbock), filed December 23, 2024)

    Important Case Documents

    Description of the Case

    Six men's basketball players at Florida State University (FSU) filed this lawsuit against FSU head men's basketball coach Leonard Hamilton, alleging that the coach promised each plaintiff $250,000 in NIL payments that were never delivered.

    The six plaintiffs are Darin Green Jr., Josh Nickelberry, Primo Spears, Cam’Ron Fletcher, De’Ante Green and Jalen Warley.

    (Florida District Court (Leon County), filed December 30, 2024)

    Archived Cases

    Description of the Case

    This is a "copycat" lawsuit to Pavia v. NCAA filed by Southern Miss basketball player John Wade III; he also seeks a declaration that the combination of NCAA Bylaw 12.8 (granting four years of eligibility in five years regardless of whether the athlete is playing sports or playing at a non-NCAA school) and NCAA Bylaw 12.02.6 (defining intercollegiate competition as including competition at both four-year and two-year institutions) is illegal under antitrust law. Wade's reasoning is functionally identical to Pavia's, as he is looking for the same relief that Pavia was granted.

    (No. 24-cv-00196, S.D. Miss., Judge Taylor B. McNeel, filed December 20, 2024)

    Current Status

    As reported by Andrew Abadie of The Pine Belt News, the parties reached a settlement that will allow Wade to play for the remaining of the 2024-25 season.

    Latest Event: The court dismissed the case based on a voluntary motion by both parties. (1/17/2025)

    Key Upcoming Dates

    • January 15, 2025: Deadline for plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary injunction for the second cause of action
    • January 23, 2025: Deadline for NCAA to respond to the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction for the second cause of action
    • January 27, 2025: Deadline for plaintiff to file a reply in support of his motion for preliminary injunction for the second cause of action

    Description of the Case

    The fifteen members of the Dartmouth College men's basketball team filed a petition with the NLRB seeking to unionize as part of the Service Employees International Union, Local 560. While only statutory employees can unionize under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the athletes argue that the degree of control exercised by Dartmouth over their activities and the benefits derived by Dartmouth from their activities shows that they are employees, rather than mere students participating in an extracurricular activity.

    (Nos. 01-RC-325633, 01-CA-348789, NLRB Region 1, filed September 13, 2023)

    Current Status

    On February 5, 2024, Region 1 regional director Laura A. Sacks issued a decision finding that the Dartmouth men's basketball players were in fact employees of Dartmouth College as defined under the NLRA and ordered an election to be held on March 5, 2024. That election was held and the players voted 13-2 in favor of union representation, thus certifying the union. Dartmouth College has indicated that they will refuse to bargain with this union, which has pushed the NLRB to file a charge against Dartmouth College alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA (unfair labor practice).

    However, on December 31, 2024, SELU and the Dartmouth basketball team filed a withdrawal of petition. According to a public statement from the union, the move is intended to "preserve the precedent" set by the regional director.

    Latest Event: The NLRB approved the players' withdrawal request (12/31/2024)

    Description of the Case

    Leading up to the filing of a motion for settlement in House v. NCAA, FCS school Houston Christian University filed a motion to intervene in the suit, arguing that the proposed settlement would cause them to breach their fidicuiary duties by causing them to divert funds from academics to athletics. They argued that none of the defendants (i.e., the NCAA) was adequately representing their interests in the case, as the NCAA had simply presented the settlement to them as a "fait accompli."

    On July 24, 2024, Judge Wilken denied Houston Christian's motion to intervene, filing that the school had not shown a practical impairment to a claimed interest necessary to establish intervention as a matter of right and had not shown that they could not resolve their dispute within the NCAA's governance structure (or by leaving the NCAA) as necessary for permissive intervention. This appeal followed.

    (No. 24-4843, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, filed MMMM DD, YYYY)

    Current Status

    Houston Christian decided on October 24, 2024, to voluntarily dismiss their case before any briefing was filed. It can be speculated (without evidence) that this dismissal was possibly in part due to their interests being captured by the filing of a similar claim by the attorney general of South Dakota in a separate lawsuit in early October.

    Latest Event: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals notified the district court that they granted Houston Christian's motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal (10/25/2024)

    Description of the Case

    The state attorneys general of Ohio, Colorado, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA arguing that NCAA Bylaws 13.5.5.1 (the Transfer Eligibility Rule) and 12.11.4.2 (the Rule of Restitution) are illegal in the way that they prohibit athletes from transfering between schools without penalty. In an amended complaint, the plaintiff states were joined by the attorneys general of Virginia, Washington DC, Minnesota, Mississippi, and the United States.

    (No. 23-cv-00100, N.D. W.Va., filed December 7, 2023)

    Current Status

    Following the court's finding that the NCAA's year-in-residence rule likely violates antitrust law and its order enjoining the NCAA from enforcing the rule moving forward, the parties reached a settlement agreeing to leave that injunction in place permanently, thus ending the litigation.

    Latest Event: Judge Bailey issued a final judgment and permanent injunction, closing the case (8/30/2024)

    Description of the Case

    Basketball players Matthew and Ryan Bewley filed suit against the NCAA over the denial of their amateurism certification due to their pre-college participation in Overtime Elite, a private high school that provided athletes (including the Bewleys) with compensation for their NIL and athletic services. The Bewleys claim that the NCAA violated antitrust law by preventing their entry into the college sports labor market without procompetitive justification.

    (No. 23-cv-15570, N.D. Illinois, filed November 1, 2023)

    Current Status

    The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case for unknown reasons while their appeal of the district court's denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction was pending.

    Latest Event: The court closed the docket and dismissed the case without prejudice after the plaintiffs' notice of voluntary dismissal (4/30/2024)

    Questions? Comments? Embarassing typos? Or am I missing any cases? (Probably) If so, let me know!