Kris Jenkins Sues NCAA Over Lost NIL Opportunities
Former Villanova basketball star Kris Jenkins has filed a lawsuit against the NCAA, alleging antitrust violations for denying him Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) opportunities during his college career. Jenkins, known for his game-winning shot in the 2016 national championship, argues that NCAA eligibility rules prevented him from capitalizing on his NIL between 2013 and 2017.
Jenkins Opts Out of NCAA Settlement,Pursues Legal Action
Jenkins,represented by attorney Kevin Thomas Duffy,Jr., opted out of the proposed NCAA settlement related to the House, Carter, and Hubbard antitrust cases. His 127-page complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York, claims the NCAA and several major conferences violated antitrust laws, restricting his ability to profit from his NIL while playing for Villanova.
Echoes of Past Lawsuits: A Growing Trend?
jenkins’ case mirrors similar lawsuits filed by other former college athletes, including Thurl Bailey (NC State), mario Chalmers (Kansas), Denard Robinson and Braylon Edwards (Michigan), Reggie Bush (USC), and Terrelle Pryor (Ohio State). These athletes contend that NCAA rules prohibiting NIL deals violated antitrust laws by restricting their ability to earn from their personal brand.
O’Bannon Precedent: A foundation for NIL Challenges
These cases draw upon the legal groundwork established by Ed O’Bannon, the former UCLA basketball star who successfully sued the NCAA over the unauthorized use of players’ NIL in commercial products.O’Bannon’s victory paved the way for state NIL statutes and,ultimately,the NCAA’s 2021 decision to allow NIL deals.
Right of Publicity at the heart of the Matter
Jenkins’ argument hinges on the right of publicity, which protects individuals from the unauthorized commercial use of their identity. He asserts that NCAA rules deprived him of this right,preventing him from engaging in endorsements,sponsorships,and other NIL arrangements.
High Profile Player, Missed Prospect
As a prominent player on a Division I team, Jenkins gained significant recognition, particularly after his championship-winning shot. He argues that he would have had lucrative NIL opportunities had he been allowed to pursue them. Being undrafted into NBA, the lost NIL opportunities may have had extra impact financially.
Former College Basketball Player Sues NCAA, Citing NIL Rights Violations
A former college basketball player is suing the NCAA, alleging that the organization’s past restrictions on name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation violated antitrust laws and unjustly enriched the association. The lawsuit, filed by a former villanova player, seeks damages for the alleged exploitation of his NIL during his college career, a period before the NCAA permitted athletes to profit from endorsements and sponsorships.
Legal Challenges Ahead for the Plaintiff
the NCAA is expected to mount a vigorous defense, likely arguing that the statute of limitations has expired.Federal antitrust claims typically have a four-year statute of limitations, while unjust enrichment claims usually have a six-year limit or less. The NCAA will likely contend that as the player last played college basketball eight years ago, his claims are time-barred.
The plaintiff may counter by arguing that the relevant time should be tolled or expanded because his college basketball achievements still appear on the Big East website and social media. The complaint also maintains that the inclusion of the last season of his collegiate career in the House class action, which was certified in 2023, could also be grounds to extend his clock to file.
NCAA’s Potential Defenses
The NCAA will likely point to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Marshall et al. v. ESPN et al. (2016),which rejected college football players’ demands for compensation for their televised appearances. Although that case is not binding precedent in the Second Circuit, where this new case is filed, the NCAA may argue its relevance. further, the NCAA will likely argue that the player accepted NCAA rules as a condition of eligibility.
Plaintiff’s Counter Arguments
The player might argue that the House settlement–which involves about $2.8 billion in compensation to settle players’ claims that they are owed money for lost NIL, video game and broadcasting opportunities on account of eligibility rules–is tantamount to acknowledging players should have been paid. Though,a settlement is not precedent on other courts,and Jenkins opted out of the chance to be compensated from the House settlement.
Background of the Case
The former Villanova player, filed the lawsuit after seeing limited professional basketball opportunities.After a brief appearance with the washington Wizards summer league team in 2017 and stints in the G League and overseas, he transitioned to a different career path.He never benefited from NIL deals or NBA contracts.
Kris Jenkins vs. NCAA: Your Questions Answered
Q&A: Unpacking the Lawsuit
Q: Who is Kris Jenkins, and why is he suing the NCAA?
A: Kris Jenkins is a former Villanova basketball star, famous for his game-winning shot in the 2016 NCAA Championship. He’s suing the NCAA as he alleges the organization’s rules prevented him from profiting from his Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) during his college career (2013-2017), thus violating antitrust laws.
Q: What are NIL opportunities,and why were they restricted?
A: NIL opportunities refer to a college athlete’s ability to earn money from endorsements,sponsorships,and other deals using their name,image,and likeness. Before 2021, the NCAA strictly prohibited athletes from profiting from their NIL, arguing it would compromise the amateur status of college sports. This policy is what Jenkins is contesting.
Q: What specific legal grounds is Jenkins using?
A: Jenkins’s lawsuit centers on two main arguments: antitrust violations,claiming the NCAA’s rules illegally restrained trade,and the violation of his right of publicity,which protects an individual’s ability to control the commercial use of their identity. He argues he lost significant financial opportunities due to NCAA restrictions.
Q: What is the “O’Bannon precedent,” and how does it relate to Jenkins’ case?
A: The O’Bannon case (O’Bannon v. NCAA) was a landmark legal battle where former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon successfully sued the NCAA over the unauthorized use of players’ NIL in video games and other commercial products. This victory was a crucial precedent as it established the right of college athletes to control their NIL and paved the way for state NIL statutes and the NCAA’s eventual change in policy. Jenkins’s case builds on this foundation.
Q: Why did Jenkins opt out of the NCAA settlement?
A: Jenkins opted out of the proposed NCAA settlement (related to the House, Carter, and Hubbard antitrust cases) as he believes his individual claim merits separate legal action. He’s seeking a larger payout than what he would receive through the settlement.
Q: What are the NCAA’s main defenses in this case?
A: The NCAA is likely to argue that the statute of limitations has expired,as Jenkins’s college career ended years ago. They may also point to the 2016 Marshall v. ESPN case, though that case isn’t binding in the current court.Moreover, the NCAA might argue that Jenkins agreed to NCAA rules as a condition of playing and that the settlement is not a precedent.
Q: What is the statute of limitations, and why is it relevant here?
A: The statute of limitations sets a time limit within which a lawsuit must be filed. Federal antitrust claims typically have a four-year limit, while unjust enrichment claims have a six-year limit (or shorter).This could be a significant hurdle for Jenkins, as his college career ended several years ago. Though, Jenkins may argue that his case is still ongoing due to his likeness still being used on Big East websites and social media. He also may point to his last season being included in the House class action.
Q: What are the potential outcomes of this lawsuit?
A: The outcome is uncertain.If Jenkins succeeds, he could receive significant financial compensation. Even if he doesn’t win, the case could further pressure the NCAA and other conferences to evolve their NIL policies.
Q: What happened to Jenkins after college basketball?
A: After a brief appearance with the Washington Wizards summer league team in 2017 and stints in the G League and overseas,he transitioned to a different career path.He never benefited from NIL deals or NBA contracts.
Q: What does this case mean for future college athletes?
A: The case represents an ongoing shift in the rights of college athletes. If Jenkins wins, it could open the door for more athletes to challenge past restrictions and seek compensation for lost NIL opportunities. This could lead to additional reforms in college sports.
Q: Where else has the NCAA been sued?
A: The NCAA has been sued many times over it’s restrictions on athlete compensation. Some other notable athletes who have sued the NCAA are Thurl Bailey,Mario Chalmers,Denard Robinson,Braylon Edwards,Reggie Bush,and Terrelle Pryor.
The kris Jenkins lawsuit highlights the evolving landscape of college sports and the growing fight for athletes’ rights. Stay informed as this legal battle unfolds, and follow how it shapes the future of collegiate athletics.
