In a bold legal move, Kris Jenkins, celebrated for his championship-clinching shot with Villanova in 2016, is taking the NCAA and six major conferences to court. His lawsuit seeks compensation for lost earnings he claims would have been his if not for rules prohibiting athletes from capitalizing on their name, image, and likeness (NIL) prior to July 2021. Jenkins joins around 350 other athletes who have opted out of a $2.8 billion antitrust settlement with the NCAA. This case underscores a growing movement among athletes seeking financial recognition beyond traditional scholarships.
Jenkins Takes Legal Action Against NCAA Policies
In the heart of a transformative era for collegiate athletics, former Villanova star Kris Jenkins has initiated a significant legal challenge against the NCAA and six prominent athletic conferences. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by attorney Kevin T. Duffy Jr., asserting Jenkins' right to a portion of the vast financial benefits that followed Villanova’s national championship win in 2016. During this period, Jenkins starred as a key player, contributing significantly over his final two seasons with averages of 13 points per game and starting in 72 of 76 games.
The lawsuit highlights substantial financial gains made by Villanova post-championship, including a remarkable $19.1 million distributed by the NCAA to the Big East conference, a historic $22.6 million donation to the athletic department, and increased revenues totaling $11.4 million that fully funded non-revenue sports. Additionally, alumni donations surged by 27%, enrollment climbed, and the publicity value of the title was estimated at approximately $250 million, reaching nearly $1 billion when considering broadcast values. Despite these monumental financial achievements, Jenkins argues that NCAA regulations unjustly barred him from receiving a share of these earnings through media broadcasts, video game appearances, and various marketing opportunities.
The defendants named in the lawsuit include major conferences such as the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and Southeastern Conference, accused of participating in collusive practices restricting athlete compensation. This case represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over athlete compensation rights within college sports.
From a journalistic perspective, Jenkins’ lawsuit marks a critical juncture in the evolving landscape of college athletics. It challenges long-standing policies that prioritize institutional profits over athlete earnings potential, sparking discussions about fairness and equity in sports finance. As the courts deliberate on this matter, it may set a precedent influencing future relationships between athletes and governing bodies in collegiate sports.