An athlete’s right to earn more has put the NCAA in legal trouble. Two college football players, USC linebacker Talanoa Ili and Stanford quarterback Charlie Mirer, have filed an antitrust lawsuit in California. They claim that the NCAA’s new revenue-sharing rules unfairly limit how much money college athletes can earn from NIL.

The lawsuit affects athletes in 17 states, including California, where state laws give college athletes strong NIL rights. According to the players, the NCAA’s restrictions conflict with these state laws and reduce opportunities for athletes to receive compensation. Ili and Mirer are bringing the case not only for themselves but also on behalf of other Division I football and men’s basketball players who may have lost earning opportunities because of this rule.

The lawsuit comes after the House settlement took effect, allowing colleges to share up to $20.5 million per year directly with student-athletes. This amount is expected to increase in the coming years. The lawsuit does not challenge the recent House settlement that allows schools to share revenue with athletes.

Instead, it seeks to stop the NCAA from enforcing certain limits on athlete compensation in those 17 states, arguing that schools and athletes should be free to negotiate higher NIL payments where state laws allow it. These states include California, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, among others, according to Brent Schrotenboer of USA TODAY. This class-action lawsuit doesn’t just include the NCAA. Even the Power Four conferences and the College Sports Commission have been put as defendants.

After the House settlement, schools can directly share money with athletes, but there are also NIL deals that come from boosters, collectives, and other outside groups. These third-party NIL deals do not have a set dollar limit. However, any deal worth more than $600 must be reviewed by the College Sports Commission (CSC).

Under CSC rules, a NIL deal must have a real business purpose. As the CSC made it clear that NIL payments cannot simply be a way for boosters or collectives to give athletes money. And that limitation is what creates the problem.

According to the complaint, the Defendants’ coordinated this decision to implement these restrictions in violation of these states’ NIL laws. If not for the Agreement, there would be vigorous competition in the NIL Rights States to pay college athletes. The Agreement has thus alleged to unlawfully restrain competition, in violation of both federal antitrust law and California state law.

Under the current rules, an athlete can receive NIL money only if there is a real business reason for the payment. For example, a company can pay an athlete to appear in an advertisement, promote a product on social media, or endorse a service.

The CSC says NIL payments must have a “valid business purpose related to the promotion or endorsement of goods or services provided to the general public for profit.” But that’s clearly limiting players from earning more, and that’s not sitting well with them.

The complaint claims that the rules “suppress or eliminate whole categories of NIL opportunities that the laws in the NIL Rights States protect.” The lawsuit specifically points to California’s NIL framework, which places few restrictions on athlete compensation. But more than fair NIL compensation, this fight is fueled by personal experiences.

The law that affected Talanoa Ili’s earnings

The lawsuit uses Talanoa Ili’s personal situation to show how the rules may be hurting athletes. It says, “Before the Settlement’s approval, Ili received a substantial multi-year offer from the House of Victory collective associated with USC.”  However, “That offer disappeared after the Court approved the Settlement, and it has not resurfaced since he signed a commitment on November 7, 2025, to attend and play for USC.”

The complaint also argues that, “Absent the NIL Restrictions on Direct Pay NIL Compensation, Ili would have received more for his NIL rights than he now receives. The Agreement has thus injured Ili.” If it weren’t for the restriction, Ili would have earned more.

The lawsuit is not trying to cancel the House settlement or challenge it. Instead, it is asking the court to stop the NCAA from enforcing these new NIL restrictions in certain states so athletes can potentially earn more freely. NIL restrictions are mainly done because of this increasing tampering in sports, but it looks like players do not like any restrictions on the way they earn this money.