States Challenge NCAA’s Name, Image, and Likeness Guidelines Amid University of Tennessee Investigation
In a bold move, attorney generals from Tennessee and Virginia have filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA, challenging the legality of the association’s name, image, and likeness (NIL) guidelines. This lawsuit comes in the wake of an ongoing NCAA investigation into potential NIL violations involving marketing firm Spyre Sports Group and the University of Tennessee. The states are seeking to eliminate the NIL guidelines adopted by the NCAA in July 2021, arguing that they violate antitrust laws by denying athletes their ability to earn full compensation for their names, images, and likenesses.
The lawsuit, titled Tennessee and Virginia v. NCAA, could potentially lead to a temporary injunction that would suspend the NCAA’s NIL rules and limitations. If the NCAA resists, the case could go to trial, which may take years to litigate. However, given the association’s current caseload, it is likely hoping to avoid another federal lawsuit challenging its governance.
The confusion surrounding college athletics has been exacerbated since the introduction of the NIL guidelines over two years ago. While guidelines are not enforceable rules, confusion reigns when enforcement is lacking. The recent penalization of Florida State in an NIL case and ongoing investigations into Florida’s recruitment practices further highlight the need for clarity in this area.
This latest lawsuit against the NCAA could potentially ignite an “epic legal firefight,” according to a source familiar with the filing. It is the third antitrust lawsuit filed against the association since November, adding to its mounting legal challenges. The NCAA is already defending itself in two similar lawsuits that could have far-reaching implications for the collegiate model.
One of these lawsuits, House v. NCAA, is scheduled for 2025 and could result in damages exceeding $4 billion if the association is found liable. In Johnson v. NCAA, former athletes are seeking to be classified as employees for the purpose of collecting back pay and damages. Additionally, the Department of Justice recently joined a lawsuit seeking to eliminate NCAA transfer rules, arguing that they restrict athletes’ ability to sell their image and likeness and control their education.
In response to this action, athletes are currently able to transfer without restrictions until the end of the current semester. However, NCAA rules still prevent athletes from playing for multiple schools within the same semester. The establishment of the transfer portal in 2018 allowed athletes to transfer without restriction from their school or coach. In 2021, athletes were granted the ability to transfer once in their careers without any limitations.
The introduction of NIL in 2021 provided unprecedented freedom for athletes. While some coaches have expressed concerns about the “free agency” atmosphere, the NCAA has attempted to defend the limited guidelines surrounding NIL. NCAA president Charlie Baker even proposed allowing schools to assist in arranging NIL deals for athletes. Recently, the NCAA adopted additional NIL guidelines, further shaping the landscape of athlete compensation.
The ongoing investigation into Spyre Sports Group, a sports marketing firm in Knoxville, Tennessee, adds another layer of complexity to the situation. It is believed that Spyre signed a lucrative contract with University of Tennessee quarterback Nico Iamaleava while he was still in high school. If Spyre is found to be a representative of Tennessee’s athletic interests, it could be considered a violation. Tennessee has already received a draft notice of allegations from the NCAA, indicating a formal investigation may be forthcoming. The university could potentially be labeled a “repeat violator” due to previous violations committed under former coach Jeremy Pruitt.
While being labeled a repeat violator could result in enhanced penalties, the NCAA has recently shifted its approach by avoiding postseason bans that would negatively impact current athletes and coaches who were not involved in the original violations.
As this legal battle unfolds, it remains to be seen how it will shape the future of college athletics and the rights of student-athletes. The outcome of this lawsuit, along with the other pending cases, could have far-reaching implications for the NCAA and its governance of collegiate sports.