A $50 million lawsuit brought by hundreds of former Michigan football players, including Denard Robinson and Braylon Edwards, is back in play after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati formally accepted their appeal Tuesday. The case, which accuses the NCAA, the Big Ten Conference, and the Big Ten Network of wrongfully profiting off former athletes' names, images and likenesses, had been thrown out by a lower court just over a year earlier.
According to The Detroit News, attorney Jim Acho filed the appeal on behalf of the former Michigan athletes. Acho has a track record in high-profile sports litigation, having previously represented NFL Hall of Famers Gale Sayers, Pat Summerall and Lem Barney, as well as plaintiffs in the NFL concussion class action. “Every major sports law case in history had to go to a court of appeals or U.S. Supreme Court,” Acho said, according to the same report, adding that his firm is committed to getting former Michigan players justice for what he called decades of unlawful, uncompensated use of their names and images.
A Lower Court Had Already Tossed the Case
The lawsuit, originally filed in September 2024, had been dismissed by a U.S. district judge against the NCAA, Big Ten Conference and Big Ten Network. That judge was Terrence G. Berg, who granted the motion to dismiss on September 26, 2025, according to CBS News. The defendants had moved to dismiss back in January 2025, arguing that the federal antitrust claims were subject to a four-year statute of limitations, leaving older claims time-barred.
To get around that deadline, Acho's team leaned on what's known as the continuing harm doctrine, arguing the NCAA and Big Ten Network commit fresh antitrust violations every time they rebroadcast, stream, or sell merchandise tied to vintage game footage without paying the athletes featured in it, according to Venable LLP. The appeal puts at issue whether those rebroadcasts are new violations or continuations of older agreements.
Nearly Five Decades of Wolverines Named in the Suit
The class covers football players who attended Michigan between 1969 and 2015, and more than 300 former players had formally joined or opted in by January 2025, according to a notice from law firm Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho P.L.C. The four primary named plaintiffs span distinct eras of the program: Braylon Edwards played from 2001 to 2004, Shawn Crable from 2003 to 2007, Mike Martin from 2008 to 2011, and Denard Robinson from 2009 to 2012 — all finishing their college careers before the 2016 cutoff that defines the dispute, per CBS Sports.
The suit uses June 15, 2016, as its cutoff. Once that 2025 House settlement was approved, former student-athletes from 2016 through 2024 became eligible for a share of $2.8 billion in back pay and a new revenue-sharing model — but anyone who played before that window, including Edwards and Robinson, was locked out.
A Growing Pile of Rejected NIL Suits
The Michigan case isn't an isolated legal gamble. Federal judges in other jurisdictions have consistently dismissed similar pre-2016 NIL lawsuits on statute-of-limitations grounds, including Terrelle Pryor's suit against Ohio State and the NCAA in July 2025 and Mario Chalmers' suit against the NCAA in April 2025, according to 10TV.
The appeal before the Sixth Circuit concerns claims by pre-2016 athletes.
The Widening Gap Between Eras of Athletes
The financial stakes underline why plaintiffs like Robinson and Edwards are pushing so hard. The approved House v. NCAA settlement includes a new revenue-sharing model for current student-athletes, according to Berger Singerman LLP. For players who starred before 2016, that revenue-sharing era simply didn't exist — even as the Big Ten Network has continued using their likenesses through game rebroadcasts and jersey sales, the former players argue.
Acho's clients maintain they're entitled to a present and future share of revenue generated from their own publicity rights. Whether the Sixth Circuit agrees — upholding the strict statutory deadline or embracing the continuing harm theory — could shape the future of pre-2016 NIL claims, a tension NIL Revolution's analysis frames as central to the appeal.
