Eight Husker Football Players Sue the Big Ten

knapplc

knapplc

International Man of Mystery
Here's a PDF of the lawsuit.


 


Husker football players file lawsuit against Big Ten over postponed season


 
Eight Nebraska football players filed a lawsuit against the Big Ten seeking a reversal of its decision to postpone the fall sports season and greater clarity as to how league leadership arrived at that conclusion.
The World-Herald obtained a copy of the 13-page complaint, which contends the league’s Aug. 11 action to postpone should be overturned because it didn’t follow established procedures in the decision-making process and was “unjustified” based on flawed and misapplied medical information. The suit is being filed in the District Court of Lancaster County.




Husker players represented are Garrett Snodgrass, Garrett Nelson, Ethan Piper, Noa Pola-Gates, Alante Brown, Brant Banks, Brig Banks and Jackson Hannah. Those whose families are “core” members of the Nebraska parents group — which first presented the possibility of legal action in an open letter last week — are Snodgrass, Hannah, Nelson, Piper and the Banks brothers.
 
The players’ attorney, Mike Flood, said the lawsuit “isn’t about money or damages, it’s about real-life relief.” Nebraska student-athletes followed every precaution and protocol as laid out by the University of Nebraska Medical Center with the expectation of playing football this fall. An “arbitrary and capricious” decision takes away that opportunity, he said.
 
“Our Clients want to know whether there was a vote and the details of any vote, and whether the Big Ten followed its own rules in reaching its decision,” Flood said. “Sadly, these student-athletes have no other recourse than filing a lawsuit against their conference.”



 





Specifically, the document raises three counts against the Big Ten:
 
» Wrongful interference with business expectations. For football student-athletes, the season represents a chance to work toward a career as a professional player as well as develop personal brands for eventual monetary gain under name/image/likeness legislation. Canceling the fall campaign based on what is now outdated or inaccurate medical information — while not taking into account why players are actually safer in a team environment that tests them regularly — cannot be justified.
» Breach of contract. The league — through reputation, public statements and its own documents — has established it exists in part to benefit its student-athletes. It potentially violated that contract by not holding an actual vote within its Council of Presidents and Chancellors.
 

» Declaratory judgment. The Big Ten not actually voting on the decision, or at least being unwilling and/or unable to produce records of such a vote, violates its governing documents. The decision should be invalid and unenforceable.
Click to expand...




 
 



 






 







 
Last edited by a moderator:
I doubt the Big Ten responds to this, because the legal basis is pretty shaky, but getting answers to the three questions would be a good outcome of this. 

Was there actually a vote? Nebraska's president says there was. Some people interpret other statements to say there wasn't. Who made the decision? And if it was Warren, why did the Presidents & Chancellors go along with it?

The NIL angle on this is interesting. Once NIL became a thing, not playing does potentially interfere with their ability to profit on their NIL, which could represent a financial loss to the players. 

 
knapplc said:
I doubt the Big Ten responds to this, because the legal basis is pretty shaky, but getting answers to the three questions would be a good outcome of this. 
Click to expand...
Legal basis doesn't seem all that shaky to me at all.  Again, depends about how the B10 documents and agreements are set up, but if policy wasn't followed correctly I think there will be some legal fallout. That said, no way even an injunction gets us a game schedule in place any time soon. 

 
Interesting to see that most of the named players are redshirt freshmen or sophomores. I like the boldness of the action. The wild part of all this is that it would have been resolved had the conference been forthcoming with information when asked initially. 

 
knapplc said:
I doubt the Big Ten responds to this, because the legal basis is pretty shaky, but getting answers to the three questions would be a good outcome of this. 

Was there actually a vote? Nebraska's president says there was. Some people interpret other statements to say there wasn't. Who made the decision? And if it was Warren, why did the Presidents & Chancellors go along with it?

The NIL angle on this is interesting. Once NIL became a thing, not playing does potentially interfere with their ability to profit on their NIL, which could represent a financial loss to the players. 
Click to expand...
What? They have to respond. Although I haven’t reviewed the claims it seems there is a legitimate basis to bring the claims. If they are able to establish irreparable harm and a “likelihood to prevail on the merits” its likely a temp injunction will be issued. The merits and third party beneficiary status based on the NIL issue is a novel argument in which there is really no precedent. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. 

 
bugeater17 said:
What? They have to respond. Although I haven’t reviewed the claims it seems there is a legitimate basis to bring the claims. If they are able to establish irreparable harm and a “likelihood to prevail on the merits” its likely a temp injunction will be issued. The merits and third party beneficiary status based on the NIL issue is a novel argument in which there is really no precedent. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. 
Click to expand...


Right, poor choice of word. They'll respond, obviously. They'll move for summary dismissal, or some such thing, without this moving forward is all I'm saying.

 
knapplc said:
Right, poor choice of word. They'll respond, obviously. They'll move for summary dismissal, or some such thing, without this moving forward is all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
Another poor choice of words as part of the suit is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The temp relief appears to be set for this afternoon, and if granted the permanent relief hearing will be set in the near future. 

Hopefully the judge is a football fan. 

 
knapplc said:
So the Big Ten has an attorney in Lancaster County, on retainer, ready to represent their position in response to this suit, today?

That seems unlikely.  
Click to expand...


By video maybe? I have no idea which is why I'm surprised there is already anything happening today.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top