NCAA Case Dismissal Poses Hurdle for Other NIL Antitrust Suits

A New York judge’s dismissal of an antitrust suit against the NCAA will guide courts weighing similar cases brought by former athletes who say the organization failed to pay them for their name, image, and likeness decades ago.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 28 dismissed claims brought by Mario Chalmers and other members of the 2008 Kansas Jayhawks national championship men’s basketball team, saying they’re time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations for federal antitrust suits.

The NCAA has already seized on the ruling and filed it this week as supplemental authority in another NIL case brought by members of the 1983 North Carolina State basketball team.

Engelmayer’s ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications for other suits with similar claims from athletes who don’t qualify for compensation under the NCAA’s proposed $2.8 billion settlement designed to provide back pay to athletes who played since 2016, antitrust lawyers said.

“There is a decent probability that other judges will interpret other cases in a similar fashion,” said William Lavery, a partner in Clifford Chance’s global antitrust litigation practice. “There has to actually be something new to adequately plead the continuing harm here.”

The NCAA in a statement this week said “it is hopeful that several of the copycat cases will be similarly treated by other courts.”

There’s no doubt the NCAA is going to “lean in” to the Chalmers ruling in an attempt to get out of other NIL litigation, said Robin Crauthers, an antitrust partner with McCarter & English LLP.

While judges will consider other factors when evaluating similar suits, including the specific antitrust harm alleged and when exactly the plaintiffs became aware of the alleged anticompetitive conduct, the Chalmers ruling is a “roadmap” for the courts to follow, Crauthers said.

“This was a very well-reasoned decision, and it’s going to be hard for another court to dismiss it,” she said. “This was not a novel theory in which the judge had to go and find cases that were similar to but not exactly on point.”

Tolling Argument

Chalmers, Sherron Collins, and other members of 2008 Kansas team alleged last year the NCAA failed to pay them for continued use of their name, image, and likeness in promoting March Madness tournaments.

The plaintiffs argued the statute of limitations didn’t apply, saying the alleged continuing violations of the law restarted the clock on their claims. They alleged each NIL use by the NCAA was an outgrowth of the antitrust conspiracy, resetting the limitations period.

But Engelmayer wasn’t persuaded, saying their theory doesn’t withstand existing case law.

“The NCAA’s use today of a NIL acquired decades ago as the fruit of an antitrust violation does not constitute a new overt act restarting the limitations clock,” he said.

The judge also held that the Chalmers plaintiffs’ request for an injunction against the NCAA was precluded by a judgment already made in the similar O’Bannon case filed in 2009 that challenged NCAA amateurism rules barring NIL compensation for former student-athletes, including former Division I basketball players.

The Chalmers plaintiffs fit the class definition in the O’Bannon action, which already resulted in an injunction against the NCAA. Engelmayer said the judgment in O’Bannon foreclosed the Chalmers plaintiffs’ bid for injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs countered that their complaint alleged broader price-fixing allegations than those adjudicated in O’Bannon.

Engelmayer also said the $208 million NCAA settlement resulting from the 2021 Alston case that reached the Supreme Court barred the damages claims for 10 of the 16 Chalmers plaintiffs.

Despite Engelmayer’s decision, attorneys for plaintiffs in similar cases remain confident that litigation against the NCAA will move forward.

W. Stacy Miller, an attorney for plaintiffs in the North Carolina case brought by the 1983 “Cardiac Pack” team, said his clients’ suit includes state claims such as unfair and deceptive trade practices that are separate and apart from the antitrust allegations.

“Our facts are completely different,” Miller said.

James Acho, an attorney for former University of Michigan players in a suit against NCAA that is pending before Judge Terrence G. Berg in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, said in an emailed statement he remains “optimistic in our push for justice for ex-UM players.”

“The hope is Judge Berg in Detroit looks at this case differently than the federal judge in NY,” Acho said.

The NCAA is represented by Wilkinson Stekloff LLP.

The case is Chalmers v. NCAA, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:24-cv-05008, 4/28/25.