By: Joseph Valcazar

Every year, the National Football League (NFL) hosts its draft, an opportunity for each of the 32 teams to select players who have just finished their time at the collegiate level in hopes of building the next Super Bowl winning roster. As a result, every year, over 200 young men have their professional football dreams realized in what becomes one of the most pivotal moments in their life. Sometimes teams make a pick that surprises fans and experts — selecting a player earlier or later than expected. Dedicated fans are fast to voice their opinions of these choices, making their thoughts known on social media or to fellow fans, but a fan filing a lawsuit in response to a draft pick would sound outlandish. That is until this year, when one man filed an intriguing lawsuit against the NFL in the aftermath of this year’s draft, and it revolves around one player: Shadeur Sanders. 

Shadeur the Football Player

Shadeur Sanders, the son of NFL Hall of Famer Deion Sanders, made a name for himself as a quarterback during his college career. As the starting quarterback for the University of Colorado, Shadeur helped take a program that had won just one game in 2022 to nine wins and a bowl game appearance in 2024. In his senior season Shadeur broke multiple school records and won the Johnny Unitas award, which is given to the top upperclassman quarterback. This collegiate success showed that he could play the sport at a high level, and a future in the NFL seemed inevitable, leading experts and fans alike to believe Shadeur was a lock to be an early pick in this year’s draft. All of this discourse made the actual events of the draft shocking for everyone.

Draft Disaster

Sport talking heads love to make predictions, especially where they think specific players will get drafted. For a time, Shadeur was considered to be a number one pick contender. Over time the general consensus shifted to quarterback Cam Ward being drafted number one overall (which became true). Leading up to the draft, analysts still had Shadeur as the second quarterback to be selected. In early April, just a few weeks before the draft was set to begin, the New Orleans Saints — who held the 9th pick — were the betting favorites to select Shadeur. Falling to the second round was viewed as a surprising “slip” for the highly discussed prospect. 

No one could have predicted what would transpire during the draft. Not only was Shadeur not the second quarterback selected, or the third … or the fourth … or even the fifth; Shadeur was the sixth quarterback to be drafted, getting selected at pick number 144 in the fifth round (of seven) to the Cleveland Browns. Instantly, questions started being asked: how could this have happened?

For one Shadeur Sanders fan, only one thing could explain what happened … collusion.

The “Lawsuit”

An anonymous man from Georgia has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the NFL, alleging collusive antitrust violations, civil rights violations, and personal emotional distress. To top it all off, he is asking for a formal apology from the NFL and $100 million in damages for the harm the NFL’s actions caused his “emotional well-being.” The basis of these claims? Reportedly leaked statements from NFL personnel that Shadeur “tanked interviews,” “wasn’t prepared,” and was “too cocky” during his pre-draft meetings. Describing these statements as “slanderous,” the John Doe plaintiff believes these statements reflect the NFL’s bias and intention to harm Shadeur. 

At this point, you may be saying to yourself, “Does this all seem a bit ridiculous?” And you would be correct. The claims presented here are shaky at best. The plaintiff likely lacks standing to bring any of the claims presented. Standing requires a party to have some kind of connection to the harm being challenged. In federal court, a three-part test has been developed to determine a party’s standing. These include:

• Injury in Fact: The injury suffered is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent;
• Causal Connection: The defendant’s conduct is traceable to the plaintiff’s injuries; and
• Redressible: A favorable decision must be likely, not speculative, to redress the injuries.

The plaintiff in this instance is likely to struggle to meet the injury-in-fact element. To show that the injury was particularized, the plaintiff would have to show that he was affected in a “personal and individual way.” This is not met for both the antitrust and civil rights claims. There is no personal connection that ties these claims to the anonymous plaintiff. If anyone could bring these types of claims, it would be Shadeur himself, as he would be the one who suffered a particularized injury. 

Unsurprisingly, the man’s emotional distress claims also face critical standing issues. While this claim at least relates to a “harm” suffered by the plaintiff, he will be grasping at straws to establish a causal connection from Shaduer’s drop in the draft and any alleged emotional distress. While sports are known for their passionate die hard fans — I can admit that my Sunday moods are often influenced by the result of my favorite team’s game — claiming that the spot a specific player was drafted at (they still made it to the NFL) has resulted in “trauma” and “psychological harm” is a stretch, and one that a federal court is unlikely to be a fan of.

An interesting procedural note is that this lawsuit was filed in forma pauperis (Latin for “as a poor person”), which allows an indigent plaintiff to sue without incurring court costs. This is a request made to the court which has the discretion to approve or disapprove such a request. Typically, the natural next step once a complaint has been filed is for the named defendants to file any pre-answer motions if available or an answer. But in an in forma pauperis manner, the court is statutorily required to dismiss a claim at any time if the suit is frivolous or malicious. A lawsuit is frivolous when a claim lacks any basis in law or fact. This means the court could dismiss the lawsuit without any action from the NFL. 

The court has granted the plaintiff’s in forma pauperis request. The judge has also directed their clerk to submit the matter for a frivolity determination consistent with the federal statute. Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor, believes the court will determine this case to be frivolous, and it’s hard to disagree. The claims are highly speculative and lack concrete, substantiated evidence.

Conclusion

Every once in a while, you see a miracle Hail Mary play occur at the end of an NFL game. Describing this lawsuit as a Hail Mary would be generous. By all accounts, this case is set up to be tossed without the NFL having to lift a finger. However, it will be a fun footnote when looking back on one of the most talked-about and controversial NFL draft stories. Shadeur will compete for the starting position this coming season, and for the sake of one Georgia man’s psychological well-being, I hope it happens. 

#NFLDraft #SportsLaw #ShadeurSanders #WJLTA