An antitrust lawsuit was filed court against the NCAA that seeks to lift restrictions on what colleges can pay player in 17 states.
According to USA Today, if successful, the lawsuit would lift revenue-sharing limits in Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.
Following the House settlement, schools were allowed to distribute $20.5 million directly to players, with that amount slated to increase over time.
The lawsuit argues that the revenue-sharing violates the law in 17 states that have adopted NIL rights legislation. The suit seeks damages on behalf of affected college football and basketball players and was filed June 9 in California.
“Defendants’ coordinated decision to implement these restrictions in violation of these states’ NIL laws (the “Agreement”) was not authorized by the Court,” the lawsuit states. “If not for the Agreement, there would be vigorous competition in the NIL Rights States to pay college athletes in those states for their NIL rights. The Agreement has thus unlawfully restrained competition, in violation of both federal antitrust law and California state law.”
The class-action lawsuit names the NCAA and Power Four conferences as defendants, along with the College Sports Commission.
The lawsuit also takes aim at the CSC's restrictions on collectives' and third-party donors' ability to pay athletes for use of their NIL. The CSC, which is currently in charge of reviewing all NIL payments, has mandated that all such payout have a “valid business purpose related to the promotion or endorsement of goods or services provided to the general public for profit.”
The lawsuit argues that such rules “suppress or eliminate whole categories of NIL opportunities that the laws in the NIL Rights States protect.”
California, which is one of the states cited in the lawsuit, does not currently place restrictions on NIL money.
“California NIL law does not prohibit NIL being conditioned on attending a specific school or prohibit NIL from being used as ‘pay-for-play,’ as that term has sometimes been used,” the complaint states. “Instead, the California NIL Law is titled the ‘Fair Pay to Play Act,’ which makes clear that pay-for-play, as permitted and protected in the Act, is lawful, legitimate NIL compensation.”
Currently the only two named plaintiffs in the case are Southern California linebacker Talanoa Ili and Stanford quarterback Charlie Mirer. The two brought the suit on behalf of four proposed classes of similarly situatied Division I college athletes involved in football and men's basketball.
“Before the Settlement’s approval, Ili received a substantial multi-year offer from the House of Victory collective associated with USC,” the complaint stated. “That offer disappeared after the Court approved the Settlement, and it has not resurfaced since he signed a commitment on November 7, 2025, to attend and play for USC. Absent the NIL Restrictions on Direct Pay NIL Compensation, Ili would have received more for his NIL rights than he now receives. The Agreement has thus injured Ili.”
The suit makes clear it is not challenging the House settlement but rather the implementation of it in those 17 states by asking for injunctive relief.
