Kris Jenkins Takes Legal Action Against NCAA Over NIL Rights
In a move that has sent ripples through the college sports world, former NCAA tournament hero Kris Jenkins has filed a lawsuit against the NCAA and six major conferences, including the Big East. The lawsuit, filed last week with the Southern District of New York, accuses these entities of limiting athlete pay and restricting Jenkins’ ability to capitalize on his name, image, and likeness (NIL) during his time at Villanova.
Jenkins’ lawsuit is a bold step, alleging that the NCAA and the conferences violated federal antitrust laws. The claim is that they impeded college athletes’ ability to earn money based on their performances and market values. The lawsuit further accuses them of unjustly enriching themselves and their for-profit partners while causing significant harm to student-athletes.
According to the lawsuit, Jenkins “seeks the compensation that he would have received absent Defendants’ unlawful restraints on pay-for-play compensation, a share of game telecast revenue and compensation that he would have received for media broadcast uses of his NIL (“BNIL”), and the compensation that he would have received for his NIL from third parties for use in video games and other opportunities including marketing, sponsorship, social media, branding, promotional, and other NIL deals.”
For those who may not remember, Jenkins etched his name into college basketball lore eight years ago. He hit a buzzer-beater against North Carolina in the 2016 national championship game, securing Villanova’s first of two titles in a three-year span. It’s a moment that still resonates with fans and is frequently replayed in NCAA highlight reels.
Jenkins expressed his happiness for current athletes who can now earn millions for their efforts in the NCAA tournament. However, he filed his lawsuit partly because the NCAA and Villanova have financially benefited from his iconic shot and subsequent performances.
Interestingly, Jenkins opted out of the $2.8 billion House vs. NCAA settlement, which was discussed in a California hearing on Monday. Instead, he chose to pursue his own lawsuit, joining a handful of former athletes who claim they were denied their NIL rights while in school.
“I feel like it’s different from those [lawsuits] and the NCAA has shown that it is different from a lot of other things that have happened in the past just because of the magnitude of the situation, the shot, the financial gains for the NCAA and the unlawful rules that they had in place that prohibited all of us from being able to benefit,” Jenkins told ESPN on Monday.
Jenkins’ lawsuit highlights the financial impact of his famous shot. He claims it spurred a $22.6 million donation from alumnus William Finneran in 2016 and allowed the NCAA to profit by using the video and image of his shot in various ways. On YouTube, the NCAA’s video of his last-second shot over the Tar Heels in 2017 has garnered 4.5 million views.
The former Villanova standout is clear about his intentions: he wants fair compensation for what he considers the pinnacle of his collegiate career. “It’s such a unique situation,” he said. “It’s a one-of-one case. We haven’t had a game-winner, walk-off buzzer-beating 3-pointer to win a national championship — I would say ever — until my shot and you see it being used on CBS broadcasts and commercials and that lets you know the value right there. I haven’t played college basketball in eight or nine years and the shot is still being replayed and reused and I haven’t been compensated for that in any way.”
Jenkins also emphasized the potential impact on his family had he been able to capitalize on NIL rights. “I just feel like the opportunity had arose for us to make the right move [with the lawsuit] and seek full compensation for not being able to make money on NIL, which hindered my family’s progress, which hindered my progress financially, which set our family back from the position that we really could have been in from the hard work that I put in,” he said. “Because at the end of the day, being a college student athlete is a nine-to-five job. We spend more time working and doing things than faculty do. Faculty gets to go home for Christmas break, but not your basketball players.”
- Jenkins’ lawsuit is part of a broader movement among former athletes seeking compensation for NIL rights.
- The case could set a precedent for how past athletes are compensated for their contributions to college sports.
- Jenkins’ iconic shot continues to be a focal point in discussions about athlete compensation and NIL rights.
Originally Written by: Myron Medcalf
