Professor Michael LeRoy will present his paper, “Are the Big Ten and SEC Monopoly PROs? Publicity Rights Organizations and New NIL Antitrust Questions,” to a symposium on Friday, February 27 for Seton Hall Law Review. His research shows that the Big Ten and SEC NIL form contracts pose new antitrust concerns for athletes. He develops an antitrust blueprint to protect college athletes from horizontal price fixing (royalty payments for use of NIL are set at $0); misappropriation, misrepresentation, and falsification of their NIL under the Lanham Act; illegal antitrust immunity; and unjust enrichment.

In early November, Professor Michael LeRoy was part of a group that filed an amicus brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of women athletes in the case of NCAA v. House. LeRoy and his co-authors argue that a recent settlement in federal district court, which awards more than 90% of damages to male athletes, violates federal rules and goes against precedent. “This ruling created a structural conflict that harmed women athletes in the settlement agreement, approved on June 6, 2025, and dismissed evidence that clearly demonstrated why certification of the classes was wrong. Published studies, showing large gender disparities in NIL pay, provide data that the lack of representation for women athletes in this litigation perpetuates historical NIL disparities, and other inequities, for NCAA women athletes,” LeRoy said.

Title IX requires schools to eliminate gender disparities, but NCAA men’s basketball players in major conferences were paid 10 times more NIL money than their counterparts on women’s basketball teams. Professor Michael LeRoy examines the disparities in NIL payments and how they are creating liabilities for schools in his latest article published in the University of Cincinnati Law Review. “The NCAA has not addressed the massive inequalities that are structurally built into the athletic departments of all Power Four conference schools, where men are paid much more than women,” LeRoy writes.

A federal judge is nearing a decision on an antitrust settlement between the NCAA and college athletes, and contracts signed by athletes might actually strengthen their case for collective bargaining rights. In an article examining the arguments of both sides, ESPN quoted Professor Michael LeRoy, who said, “It’s employment on its face. There’s no masking it.”

Professor Michael LeRoy’s latest research “Are Collectives Joint Employers of College Athletes? An Empirical Analysis of NIL Deals and School Policies,” will be published in a leading sports journal, Marquette Sports Law Review. His study is based on a dataset of NIL deals from an anonymized power five xonference athletic program; it shows that in 2022-23, 91% of NIL money went to football and men’s basketball players and deal signing dates were in compressed periods that are like contract signings for NFL and NBA players. He concludes that these two sports should be treated differently from other men’s and women’s sports by courts, the NLRB, and Congress, as evidence suggests  NIL collectives are joint employers with the school for these sports. LeRoy was also able to present this research recently to the Chicago Bar Association Sports Law Committee.

When the 2023 season concludes in college football, the game may never look the same again. Teams will switch long-time conference allegiances, players will switch teams, some conferences may cease to exist, and the playoff system will triple in size. This upheaval is triggered by money: money from television contracts and money on offer to students in the form of NIL (name, image and likeness) deals. In their examination of the changes at hand, the New York Times quoted Professor Michael LeRoy, who was unsparing in his criticism of the current state of college football. “This has become a soulless enterprise,” LeRoy said. “There is no moral compass. There is no brotherhood. Now you eat off your brother’s plate and you don’t care if he goes hungry.”