Frank Thomas has sued the Chicago White Sox, Nike, and Fanatics over the sale of “City Connect 2.0” jerseys bearing his name and retired No. 35, alleging the companies used his identity commercially without permission or payment. The Frank Thomas jersey lawsuit was filed on March 19, 2026 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, and invokes the Illinois Right of Publicity Act.1Corboy & Demetrio. Corboy and Demetrio Representing Hall of Famer Frank Thomas in Jersey Lawsuit
What the Lawsuit Alleges
The complaint, Frank Thomas v. Nike, Inc., Fanatics, Inc., Fanatics Apparel, LLC, and Chicago White Sox, Ltd. (Case No. 2026L003200), targets the White Sox “City Connect 2.0” jersey, a red-and-black, Bulls-inspired design that went on sale on or about April 28, 2025.2The New York Times (The Athletic). Frank Thomas White Sox Nike Fanatics Lawsuit The jersey carries Thomas’s No. 35 on the front and his last name and number on the back, alongside White Sox marks and Nike branding.3ESPN. Frank Thomas Files Suit Against White Sox, Nike, Fanatics Thomas alleges he never consented to that use and received nothing from any of the defendants.
The suit is brought under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, which bars using a person’s identity for a commercial purpose without written consent.4Fox 59. Frank Thomas Files Lawsuit Against White Sox, Nike, and Fanatics Over Jersey Sales Thomas also claims the defendants were “unjustly enriched” by the sales.5Front Office Sports. White Sox Frank Thomas Lawsuit The complaint seeks damages in excess of $50,000, punitive damages, attorney fees, and a jury trial.6WGN-TV. Frank Thomas Files Lawsuit Against White Sox Alleging Use of Name and Likeness Without His Permission Thomas is represented by William T. Gibbs, Thomas A. Demetrio, and Mitchell W. Bild of Corboy & Demetrio in Chicago.1Corboy & Demetrio. Corboy and Demetrio Representing Hall of Famer Frank Thomas in Jersey Lawsuit
Others Named in Discovery
Beyond the three defendants, the filing names several entities as respondents in discovery, a procedural step that lets Thomas’s team seek information to decide whether to add them as defendants. Those respondents include the National Baseball Hall of Fame, the Chicago Bulls, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Academy, Kohl’s, Lids, and Macy’s. As of late March 2026, the jerseys were still available on Nike’s and Fanatics’ websites.2The New York Times (The Athletic). Frank Thomas White Sox Nike Fanatics Lawsuit
Where the Case Stands
The case is active. A case management hearing was set for May 21, 2026 in Cook County.3ESPN. Frank Thomas Files Suit Against White Sox, Nike, Fanatics None of the defendants have addressed the merits publicly. The White Sox said they “do not comment on ongoing litigation,” and Nike and Fanatics each declined to comment.7ABC 7 Chicago. Frank Thomas Lawsuit: MLB Hall of Famer Suing White Sox, Nike, Fanatics Over City Connect 2.0 Jerseys Gibbs said in a statement that “companies may not profit from anyone’s identity without their permission.”8WTTW News. Frank Thomas Sues White Sox, Nike Over Branded Jerseys Sold Without Hall of Famer’s Consent
The Illinois Right of Publicity Act
The statute took effect on January 1, 1999 and prohibits using another person’s identity for a commercial purpose without prior written consent. A commercial purpose is defined as public use of someone’s identity in connection with the sale of products, merchandise, goods, or services.9U.S. News & World Report. Hall of Famer Frank Thomas Files Lawsuit Seeking Damages Against White Sox, Fanatics, Nike Violators can be liable for the greater of actual damages and profits or a statutory floor of $1,000, and courts can award punitive damages for willful violations along with attorney fees.
Applied to Thomas’s complaint, the question the case will likely turn on is whether any of the defendants had a contractual or licensing basis to place his name and number on the jerseys, and if not, how damages should be measured against the sales.
Why Thomas Is Suing on His Own
Thomas is a retired player acting individually, not through the union’s licensing arm. MLB Players, Inc., the for-profit licensing subsidiary of the Major League Baseball Players Association, manages group licensing for active Major League and Minor League players.10MLBPA. MLB Players, Inc. and Caesars Entertainment Announce Multiyear Licensing Agreement It has been an active litigant in the image-rights space, suing the Pittsburgh Pirates’ parent company and Sheetz in August 2024 over social media posts using players’ images (voluntarily dismissed in December 2024 after a verbal settlement),11ESPN. MLBPA Affiliate Withdraws Image Lawsuit Against Pirates, Company and suing DraftKings and Bet365 in September 2024 over promotional content, a case that survived a motion to dismiss in March 2025 and is in discovery.12FindLaw. MLB Players Inc v. DraftKings Inc DK
Retired players sit outside that collective structure. Their publicity rights are theirs to enforce individually, which is why Thomas’s case proceeds under Illinois state law rather than through the union.
The Backdrop With the White Sox
The lawsuit lands on a relationship that has swung between celebration and grievance for more than 20 years. Thomas was drafted seventh overall by the White Sox in 1989, debuted on August 2, 1990, and over 16 seasons became the franchise’s career leader in home runs, doubles, RBIs, runs, walks, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage, with back-to-back American League MVPs in 1993 and 1994. He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame on the first ballot in 2014.13SABR. Frank Thomas
In 2002 the White Sox invoked a “diminished skills” clause in Thomas’s contract, cutting his base salary to $250,000 and deferring more than $10 million.7ABC 7 Chicago. Frank Thomas Lawsuit: MLB Hall of Famer Suing White Sox, Nike, Fanatics Over City Connect 2.0 Jerseys Then-general manager Ken Williams later called Thomas an “idiot” publicly in 2006, and the club bought out his contract after he played only 34 games in the 2005 championship season. The team retired his No. 35 in August 2010, named him an ambassador, and in 2016 made him a special consultant for business operations.14The New York Times (The Athletic). Frank Thomas White Sox Black History Month
Tensions returned in early 2026. Thomas did not attend the 20th anniversary celebration of the 2005 World Series in 2025, and in February 2026 he criticized the club on X over a Black History Month graphic he felt excluded him, writing: “I Guess the black player who made you rich over there and holds all your records is forgettable! Don’t worry I’m taking Receipts!”15Sox Machine. Spare Parts: Frank Thomas Sues White Sox Again The jersey suit followed about six weeks later.