Terrelle Pryor NIL Antitrust Lawsuit against NCAA Dismissed

In another legal win for the NCAA this week, a federal judge in Ohio on Friday dismissed former Ohio State quarterback Terrelle Pryor’s lawsuit against the NCAA, the Big Ten Conference, Ohio State and Learfield for lost NIL opportunities while he starred for the Buckeyes from 2008 to 2010.

The ruling by U.S. Chief District Judge Sarah D. Morrison follows the April dismissal of a similar lawsuit brought by former Kansas star Mario Chalmers and 15 other former college basketball players in a New York federal court over the use of their NIL in advertisements, broadcasts and other commercial purposes.

Pryor, 36, accused the defendants of conspiring to violate antitrust law and unjustly enriching themselves. They allegedly did so through eligibility rules that denied NIL opportunities for athletes on account of their amateur status. 

The MVP of the Rose Bowl and Big Ten Freshman of the Year, Pryor played more than a decade before the NCAA allowed athletes to sign NIL deals without violating terms of their eligibility. He maintained the NCAA and its members not only denied athletes’ NIL deals but also used players’ NIL to secure their own lucrative merchandise, apparel and TV deals. 

Pryor also asserted his NIL harm has continued long after he played for the Buckeyes. He referenced the NCAA “hosting videos” on its website and on YouTube that show Pryor and other players. These videos often require a viewer to first watch a commercial advertisement. 

Pryor is an especially interesting person to bring a case over lost NIL deals. He famously (or infamously) ran afoul of NCAA rules on account of receiving compensation for signing autographs. The NCAA suspended him and four teammates in 2011 for obtaining “free tattoos” as compensation for signing autographs for a tattoo parlor and selling memorabilia. Nowadays, this type of activity could be conducted in compliance with NCAA rules.

Morrison identified several problems with Pryor’s lawsuit.

For starters, Pryor’s claims against Ohio State are barred by sovereign immunity, which generally permits the government and related public entities—including state universities—to be sued only when they agree to be sued. Morrison noted that Ohio State is an “arm of the state” since it’s a public university. 

The judge acknowledged there are a bevy of exceptions to a sovereign immunity defense. None, however, was applicable. For instance, if Pryor brought a claim under the federal Lanham Act (aka Trademark Act), an exception might apply, but he didn’t. Also, if Pryor had sued Ohio State officials in their official capacities, an exception might apply, but he didn’t do that either.

The passage of too much time is another problem for Pryor, Morrison explained. He played in college about 15 years ago. Federal antitrust claims have a four-year statute of limitations and unjust enrichment claims under Ohio law typically have a six-year statute of limitations. 

On the surface, Pryor was more than a decade too late in suing. 

In court filings, Pryor anticipated, and attempted to quell, the timing problem by arguing he was required to cede control of his NIL in perpetuity. He also insisted his NIL is still being used by the NCAA and other defendants. 

Morrison wasn’t convinced. She stressed that to the extent Pryor suffered an injury from a wrongful act, the act occurred while Pryor played in college and accepted eligibility rules. Even if Pryor continues to feel the adverse impacts long after he played, Morrison explained, that continuing harm would go to Pryor’s potential economic damages—not the timing of when he would have been a victim of an illegal act. 

“The continued commercial usage of Mr. Pryor’s NIL rights,” the judge wrote, “is a ‘manifestation’ of Defendants’ past conduct, not a new and independent act that restarts the statute of limitations.”

The judge also reasoned that Pryor’s failure to bring a claim in a timely manner can’t be excused by fraudulent concealment. Pryor argued that the defendants concealed the misuse of NIL through amateurism rules. While the NCAA for many years portrayed amateurism as protecting college sports, Pryor suggests it was a system designed to exploit athletes’ NIL.

But Morrison reasoned there’s a logic problem with Pryor’s depiction: There was no concealment.

“Even assuming the NCAA’s rules concealed their profit-motive for their actions,” Morrison wrote, “Mr. Pryor knew at the time he played college sports that Defendants required him to relinquish control of his publicity rights—the cause of the injury he now complains of.”

Morrison added that Pryor saw other athletes, namely Ed O’Bannon and Shawne Alston, bring antitrust cases over athletes’ economic rights.

“His choice to not bring this action until Alston was decided does not excuse his delay,” the judge stressed.

Pryor can appeal Morrison’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In a statement shared with Sportico, an NCAA spokesperson said the association “is pleased” with Morrison dismissing Pyror’s case. “As in a similar previous case,” the statement continued, “the court definitively examined and dismissed the antitrust and unjust enrichment claims, finding they were untimely. We are hopeful that additional copycat cases will see the same outcome.”

The NCAA’s victory against Pryor came two days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit sided with the association by reversing a preliminary injunction that would have allowed Wisconsin cornerback Nyzier Fourqurean to play a fifth season of college football in five years.