Federal judge dismisses Mario Chalmers v NCAA legal battle seeking compensation for old college players missing out on NIL benefits

For many years, the policy of the NCAA on matters of compensation of student-athletes has undergone very drastic changes, influenced by a lot of gauging with the legal suits. The association has forbidden monetary compensation for college athletes until 2021, when student-athletes were finally allowed to get paid for their name, image and likeness.

However, Mario Chalmers, a former Kansas basketball star, along with 15 other athletes, argued that college athletes who played in the 1990s and early 2000s also deserve to be compensated for the lost NIL opportunities they suffered.

According to an X post from Front Office Sports on Monday, federal judge Paul Engelmayer dismissed Chalmers' complaint filed against the NCAA, noting it as untimely.

Initially, the NCAA agreed to provide Division I athletes who competed between 2016 and 2021 with $2.8 billion in damages for not being able to earn NIL money. This caused Chalmers and other former college players who did not benefit from NIL to feel they deserved compensation as well.

However, Engelmayer pointed out that the athletes failed to satisfy the statute of limitations, which requires that antitrust legal proceedings be brought within 4 years of the damage occurring.

"The NCAA’s use today of an NIL acquired decades ago as the fruit of an antitrust violation does not constitute a new overt act restarting the limitation clock," Engelmayer wrote.

Sports law professor stresses the judge's decision favoring NCAA could discourage others from suing

Sam Ehrlich, a sports law professor at Boise State University, emphasized that the federal judge's decision could set a precedent that may discourage other former college players from suing the NCAA.

Ehrlich told Courthouse News that all the lawsuits, including those from former college stars like Mario Chalmers, Terrelle Pryor and Reggie Bush, share similar issues and plaintiffs, and this ruling could greatly hinder their efforts.

"I can’t see any claims that would have a significantly longer statute of limitations or have a better base on the continuing violations doctrine than antitrust," Ehrlich said. "I think this was kind of their one big chance."

Ehrlich believes that since the introduction of NIL in 2021, there has been an increasing number of lawsuits as athletes attempt to retroactively earn money that was previously inaccessible to them during their time in college.

In a statement released regarding the court’s decision, the NCAA expressed its satisfaction with the dismissal of the Chalmers case and expressed optimism that similar cases will be dealt with in other courts in a like manner.