On June 9, 2026, Talanoa Ili and Charlie Mirer—college football players at USC and Stanford—filed a class action lawsuit. The suit, brought in the Northern District of California, targets the NCAA and major college athletic conferences over new rules that restrict name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights.
This case could shake up college sports by tackling alleged antitrust violations that, according to the plaintiffs, keep athlete earnings unfairly low.
The Background of the Lawsuit
Back in 2020, plaintiffs in another case, House, argued that the NCAA and big conferences broke antitrust laws by banning NIL payments. They also pointed to limits on scholarships and the fact that athletes couldn’t share in the huge money pile from broadcast and media rights.
After some back and forth, the parties reached a settlement that tried to standardize NIL compensation. The agreement created the College Sports Commission (CSC), an independent group meant to make sure NIL deals actually reflect fair market value, not just serve as sneaky recruiting perks.
The Role of the College Sports Commission
On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Ann Wilken approved the settlement. Critics weren’t thrilled, arguing the rules still hold back athletes’ NIL earnings and clash with certain state laws that give athletes more rights.
Ili and Mirer’s lawsuit now takes aim at how the NCAA and conferences have put these new NIL restrictions into play after the settlement.
Allegations of Antitrust Violations
The plaintiffs claim the NCAA and conferences teamed up in a “horizontal agreement”—basically, a coordinated effort among rivals—to keep NIL compensation lower than what a real market would pay. That’s allegedly a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act.
They also say these groups have a ton of market power, controlling the main platforms for NIL money, like TV exposure and digital content.
Horizontal and Vertical Agreements
The complaint goes further, saying there’s a “vertical” angle too. The NCAA and conferences allegedly enforce NIL restrictions by tying them to things like conference membership and athlete eligibility.
By agreeing to keep a lid on NIL earnings, the plaintiffs argue, the defendants are basically price-fixing. That’s a big antitrust no-no, and the result is athletes making less than they should.
Potential Remedies and Legal Implications
The lawsuit asks for several remedies, including triple damages for affected athletes and court orders to stop future NIL suppression. The heart of the case is the claim that the NCAA and conferences worked together to limit athlete pay.
In antitrust law, if an agreement like that is clearly anticompetitive, it’s generally illegal on its face.
Market Power of Major College Athletic Conferences
The complaint also digs into the power held by the “Power Four” conferences. Plaintiffs argue that, by enforcing the same restrictions across many states, these conferences effectively wipe out competition for NIL earnings.
The result? Athletes end up with less money than they’d get in a true open market.
Challenges to NCAA’s Authority
Plaintiffs believe the restrictions aren’t really about stopping fake deals or keeping the playing field level. Instead, they say, it’s just about cutting athlete earnings.
They also claim the NCAA and conferences, especially in California with its Fair Pay to Play Act, are working together in a way that’s not just illegal but interferes with athletes’ economic opportunities.
Impact on College Sports
If the plaintiffs win, the case could seriously change how college sports operate. It directly challenges the NCAA’s long-standing power to set the rules on athlete earnings and NIL rights.
There’s a clear tug-of-war here between state laws that want to help athletes and the NCAA’s push for one-size-fits-all rules.
Legislative Efforts and Future Developments
This lawsuit might also light a fire under Congress. Lawmakers in both chambers have introduced big bills on NIL and athlete eligibility.
The latest, the Protect College Sports Act, is up for discussion in the Senate Commerce Committee, with amendments expected to get a look on June 18.
Guidance for Stakeholders
The NIL landscape keeps shifting, and honestly, it can feel like a moving target. Buchanan brings sharp insight to help clients build compliance programs and handle investigations.
It’s not just about avoiding liability—it’s about staying competitive as the market changes fast. If you want to dig deeper, check out the full article here.
- Schools Covered
- College Football Articles
- Men's College Basketball Articles
- Men's College Soccer Articles
- Women's College Basketball Articles
- Olympic Athlete Articles
- Men's College Baseball Articles
- College Sports Media Professionals Articles
- Hall of Fame Member Articles
- Former College Player Articles
- Game Previews
