Update (September 2026): Since publication of this article, the “Cardiac Pack” case has been argued before the North Carolina Supreme Court. During oral argument, the players narrowed their focus to the NCAA’s alleged use of 1983 championship footage to promote future NCAA tournaments and events, emphasizing that they are not challenging the NCAA’s ability to own or display historical game footage. Instead, they argued that copyright ownership does not confer a separate right to use athletes’ identities in modern advertising without consent.

The Justices seemed to devote substantial attention to the NCAA’s statute-of-limitations defense and questioned whether present-day promotional uses should be treated as new injuries rather than claims that accrued when the players signed NCAA eligibility documents more than forty years ago. It will be interesting to see if the appeal ultimately turns less on ownership of the footage itself and more on the extent to which copyright rights and NIL rights coexist when historical athletic footage is used to market contemporary events..

Original article published Aug. 21, 2025

The North Carolina Business Court recently dismissed a lawsuit brought by members of N.C. State’s legendary 1983 NCAA men’s basketball championship team in Members of N.C. State Univ.’s 1983 NCAA Men’s Basketball Nat’l Championship Team v. NCAA, 2025 NCBC 42.  The players had alleged that the NCAA unlawfully used their names, images, and likenesses (NIL) in archival footage without compensation. But the Court disagreed.

The Claims

The plaintiffs asserted a mix of state law claims, including misappropriation of publicity rights, unfair trade practices, and unjust enrichment. Their most notable claim relied on a novel antitrust theory: the players claimed that they had been coerced into signing the now-infamous Student-Athlete Statement (SAS) in 1983, and that the SAS was invalid. Thus, the NCAA’s use of game footage featuring their likenesses violated their NIL rights, and the NCAA’s continued use of the footage constituted an ongoing violation.

The Court’s Response

The Business Court dismissed the case on three grounds:

  1. Statute of Limitations: The Court found that the plaintiffs waited too long to bring their claims after their alleged injury occurred in 1983 when the SAS was signed, and it held that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a continuing wrong.
  2. Implied Consent: The Court reasoned that participation in broadcast sporting events implies consent to the use of one’s likeness in that context. The plaintiffs had no enforceable right to control the footage.
  3. Copyright Preemption: Perhaps most significantly, the Court held that the plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by the federal Copyright Act. Their attempt to control the reproduction of game footage was, in essence, a challenge to the NCAA’s copyright—not a standalone NIL claim.

The Court acknowledged that NIL misappropriation claims can, in theory, arise from the use of copyrighted works. However, it emphasized that a valid NIL claim must be based on the misuse of identity independent of the copyrighted medium. In this case, the plaintiffs did not allege that the NCAA used their names or likenesses in a way separate from the copyrighted game footage. Instead, their claims sought to control the reproduction and dissemination of the footage itself. That, the Court held, is squarely within the domain of copyright law—and therefore preempted by the federal Copyright Act.

The Court cited precedent to reinforce this point: when the identity-related claim is inseparable from the copyrighted content, it cannot survive preemption. The plaintiffs’ attempt to reframe their grievance as a NIL violation failed because they did not allege any use of their identities outside the footage—no standalone promotional use, no commercial endorsements, no separate exploitation of their personas.

Why This Case Matters

Importantly, the Court could have ended its opinion after concluding that the claims were time-barred, but instead chose to address the enforceability of NIL rights and the boundaries of copyright law. That decision signals how the Business Court is likely to approach similar suits going forward—and it sets a roadmap for what a viable NIL misappropriation claim must look like when copyrighted content is involved.

The ruling is a sobering reminder that NIL rights, while expanding rapidly in today’s collegiate landscape, don’t reach backward in time. Courts are unlikely to rewrite history or undo decades-old agreements, especially when federal copyright law stands in the way. It also underscores a critical legal distinction: NIL rights protect against the misuse of identity, but they don’t override copyright ownership of the medium in which that identity appears. If the footage is copyrighted, the rights holder—not the athlete—controls its use.

Looking Ahead

As NIL continues to evolve, especially with new state laws and NCAA policy shifts, this case may serve as a cautionary tale for athletes hoping to reclaim control over their legacy. The law may be catching up to the NIL era, but it’s not rewriting the past.