If the year were 2016, Denard Robinson, Braylon Edwards, Michael Martin and Shawn Crable would have a timely argument that the denial of NIL opportunities while they played football for the University of Michigan Wolverines violated antitrust law and constituted unjust enrichment.

But it’s 2026.

As U.S. District Judge Terrence Berg explained in denying the players’ motion to alter or amend his dismissal of their case last year, the players waited too long to sue the NCAA, the Big Ten and the Big Ten Network.

Last Friday, Berg issued an opinion stressing that federal antitrust claims must be brought within four years of when a defendant allegedly committed a wrongful act.

It’s the same constraint that has led to the dismissal of similar lawsuits brought by former Ohio State quarterback Terrelle Pryor, former Kansas point guard Mario Chalmers, former Villanova forward Kris Jenkins, former NC State forward Thurl Bailey and many others who played before college athletes could earn NIL compensation without forfeiting their eligibility.

The four Michigan players played for the Wolverines at different points between 2001 and 2012. They argue they were required to sign the NCAA student-athlete statement, which “effectively transferred their publicity rights to the NCAA,” and that failure to sign the form would have led to their being deemed ineligible. The NCAA and its member institutions are accused of appropriating the players’ publicity rights without compensation and in perpetuity, to the financial benefit of NCAA member institutions.

As Berg explained, the key to the players’ theory rests on signing away their rights to the NCAA. The latest that occurred was in 2012, which Berg said makes the lawsuit “grossly untimely.”

Berg noted the players insist their claims aren’t time-barred on account of a “continuing violations theory.”

The gist of that theory is that because the NCAA and Big Ten continued to use the players’ NIL long after they left Michigan, they suffered alleged legal injuries long after 2012.

Berg was unpersuaded, however, because their case is based on signing a form as late as 2012. While continued use after 2012 might increase potential damages, that use doesn’t serve as a “new and independent act that restarts the statute of limitations.”

For the same reason, the players’ unjust enrichment claim came up short.

The applicable statute of limitations for unjust enrichment is, at most, six years, and the claim stems from when the players conferred “control over their NIL” to the NCAA and Big Ten. That happened no later than 2012. Since the players sued in 2024, the claim was filed well after the applicable limitations period expired.

Berg’s decision endorses the same logic he enunciated last year when he dismissed the lawsuit. The players can appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

As Berg also noted, none of these “lost NIL” cases in U.S. courts has proven successful. While the NCAA has won and lost eligibility lawsuits over the last two years, the association has thus far run the table on lost-NIL lawsuits.

It’s fair to note that the players’ predicament is not merely about waiting too long to sue. They played in an era when few athletes were willing to challenge NCAA rules in court, with former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon a notable exception. They also played before the applicable statute of limitations for claims in House v. NCAA, which led to a class-action settlement going back as far as 2016—four years after 2012.