Apparently 6000 retired NFL players sued EA sports for using their images. The case was settled for 27 million. Now I assume that the attorneys may have gotten 1/3 or 9 Million. That means that the individual players got about 3,000 each. I can see why the attorneys representing the former college players want to sue on their behalf. Quite frankly, if the players are going to be getting something like 3 grand in the end, why are they bothering? 27 million might be a considerable sum but isn't it half of what Penn. St. was fined by the NCAA? I'm not so sure that I see Armageddon here.
Terry, 1. Current NFL players fall under the NFLPA, whatever their cut, it's taken care of and distributed. 2. Before I could get to former players, Gip did the good research. Gip, The Armageddon comes when, this suit goes from being simply the former players suing for their proper cut to being a side show in which every half-assed idiot with an opinion (most of whom want to pay the current players) decide to jump aboard. Thanks to the NCAA's stubbornness on the issue, that's what's so perilously close to happening. If you read the article, it spelled the events out quite clearly. If you do the math on this thing, it would have been easier for the NCAA to just settle. They did not. Perhaps the 2 most relevant passages from the article that pertain to your question are this: and As noted above, had the NCAA addressed the real, original issue, in which they had no good defense for themselves, this would have been a drop in the financial bucket and everyone just moves on. Instead, we are now entering the sideshow portion of the program with judges making half-assed rulings and the circus train is getting bigger. The NCAA is playing a game of chicken over pride and greed, and if they lose..everyone loses.. because the players won't get that money but it could well potentially forever alter the world of college sports as we know it.
Still say fook'em...those guys don't deserve a penny and certainly doesn't warrant ruining college sports to get 3 grand each for former NCAA players.
I admittedly don't have a great understanding of the legal issues y'all are discussing here. Wasn't even aware of this suit until this thread started. I'm no lawyer, and God knows what judges and juries will decide...outcomes of some cases absolutely amaze me... But there DOES seem to be a distinction to be drawn between paying student athletes to play...vs. using their names on jerseys that the school profits from and using their likenesses on sports video games. I think that as far as jerseys go, the schools understand this. I don't know about all colleges, but I know that I can get a Brown's replica jersey with the players name on it (presumably the player gets a cut), but on Ohio State replica jerseys I have only seen a number (the popular player's numbers, to be sure, but so what? They don't have ownership of the number.) If I were the king high foofah deciding this I would probably find in favor of former and current players whose likenesses or names were clearly used...and give them a cut of the profits equivalent to what pro athletes whose likenesses are used. They would have to be clear likenesses and obvious attempts at using particular athletes (not just the numbers..."Oh, that was my number when I sat on the bench for four years") Does it come from the NCAA or from EA Sports? Don't really know and don't really care. Make it proportional to their share of the profits. But I don't see where that "right turn", as Corey puts it (opening it up to current players), necessarily opens the door to compensation for TV revenue, ticket revenue, etc. But these are lawyers...God knows what they will come up with, right Gip?
The big problem for the NCAA is venue which is in Cal. It appears to me that they have a liberal leaning judge. An appeal from the trial court goes to the Ninth Circuit which is slightly right of North Korea. And while that circuit is the most overruled by the USSC it requires a lot of time and legal expenditures and a request by the court to take the case.
Terry, It's not the players who are risking the game here though? I could think of several examples of your business, as I am sure you could, in which you'd never stand for it. Stu, Agreed.. 'the right turn' as Gip mentions below is what this has become. What this is now, is not what started. The initial case was one in which the NCAA had no defense for itself. They decided to fight and motion, keeping it all in the legal system. All they had to do was say 'oops' and cut a check. Case closed. Instead, they denied wrong doing and tried to outspend the defense. Now this thing has entered the looney bin of the judicial system and pandora's box is right on the verge of opening. There's no denying the NCAA did this and still does it. One of the links I provided is to a NCAA licensed UCLA jersey with O'Bannon's name on the back. You can buy that right now. The NCAA continues to thumb their nose at everyone in the hopes that the die hard fans, such as the good Dr in Houston, will blame everyone except those who are truly guilty. Gip, You are right. It's that court that made the astonishing ruling that the current players can be involved in this suit and opened it up to TV revenue as well. This could possibly become an incredibly expensive waste of money.. and that is in a 'best case scenario' for those of us who are hoping this isn't the end of college sports as we know it.
By the way Corey, I think that EA is calling the shots here. I don't know what is in the contract between EA and the NCAA, but since EA gets the lion's share of the revenue, they're the ones that are probably on the hook for any judgement.
Financially, I'd have to agree although I'm quite sure the NCAA grants the release for the use of the images/likeness. I'm pretty sure the coaches aren't included in those games in any way. I'm pretty sure that's not an accident. I could be wrong. I'll look at the games I have and see, but I can't remember any.
Under California law if you're only 1% responsible for damages, you can still be forced to pay 100% of a judgement that goes against your side. This is the state that created "jackpot justice." The idea is to go after ANYBODY that has money. You don't even have to know their name. I've seen lawsuits against baseball coaches that include long lists of "John Doe" entries... :idea: :roll:
I agree a 100% with Stoops on this. And IMHO, it's the kids that can't even afford the school loans in the first place that are gettin' the benefit. Without those scholarships, are they really gonna go to school?
What a ******* joke... what an outright joke. First of all, hello Mr Strawman, it's been a week or so since we've seen you. It was so nice of Mr Stoops to bring you to the dance. While you're here, I think I'd like to talk to you about one of the great scams in academia, but we'll get to that in a minute. Let's talk about the facts of the case. No, we're not talking about the fact that you're making $3 million a year to put out a horse **** product on the field playing in a 2nd tier BCS conference, nor are we here to talk about the fact that you made $12,465.75 today alone despite not producing a god damned thing.... No, not yet at least. We're here to talk about what this case is, was and has now become. Then we'll talk about some real numbers, no Bob we're going to leave your salary alone. There's only so many licks a dead horse can take. We will re-visit your little bit about the cost of education in Oklahoma.. but first. 1. This case was not about paying players. That's a fact. This case was about paying FORMER players because their image was used, indisputably, by the NCAA and EASports. There's precedent for this. In fact, any and all case law is on the side of O'Bannon et all here. EASports has lost this suit previously with the NFL. These were not college players under contract and receiving compensation for their services. These were former players. I understand that it's difficult for you to comprehend since it seems like you've made 15 million dollars since you were last relevant or put an allegedly NC caliber team on the field, but it's true.. they aren't paying you in perpetuity, they are paying you annually.. Even though you haven't really worked a whole lot these days. This is a case that could have gone away if the NCAA simply cut the check and been done with this. They don't claim any rights to those NFL players, do they? Why are they still claiming the rights to the ones they know can't afford to fight them? They know they are wrong. The NFLPA would destroy them and has already beaten EASports in the courts on this issue. But you want to blame the victim.. 2. I actually do understand why you'd speak out against this. I mean, you and the University Admins around the country stand to take a big pay cut. I think you'll be curious to know that I'm hoping you win. It's not because I think you're right. I'm just hoping the courts can save the game that we all love so much yet you take for granted. Had you not been such pig headed bullies, this never would have reached the whack job courts in NoCal and this case never would have been about current players or the economic model of the game. However, it is about those things now. You can't blame the victim. They didn't put those people on the wagon, the courts did. The reason the court had that chance was because you and your cronies were greedy little piggies.. Speaking of which. 3. In what universe would anyone in their right mind pay (according to your numbers) $200,000 a year to go to school in Oklahoma IF NOT for the football and athletic program. I mean, honestly, let's talk about this. You want to talk 'real' let's talk 'real.' If a student isn't going to study tornadoes or oil industry fields, why would they go to Oklahoma at all? I checked the Princeton Review and according to them, in-state students pay $3957 per semester for tuition while out-of-state students pay $15,594 per semester for tuition. Exactly how and why do you justify that? It seems rather clear to me that you either, a) Don't want out of state kids in Oklahoma or b)Simply creating an environment of inflation to capitalize on the fact that you have a world class 'brand.' I understand that all schools do this and claim it is used as a mode of offering kids in-state an affordable education. You and I really know what this is about. http://www.princetonreview.com/universityofoklahoma.aspx Just as we know how difficult it must be for the head coach of a school who has a long established history of adding additional monetary compensation to their football players on top of the scholarships to grasp this, still you must try. And try I will, to understand your claim here. Just so we have this straight, are you claiming that once you sign a National Letter of Intent.. you are saying that you are forever entitled to a free education, room and board and all the nifty 'nutritionists' (aka steroid pushers) that they can handle forever, right? No!!? Oh! I see. What you are doing is pandering to the ignorance of the average fan about what you actually do and what that Letter of Intent entitles these kids to...These 'scholarships' are really contracts that are annual and renewable entirely at YOUR discretion unless, of course, their conduct becomes such that the university steps in and does the disciplinary work that you should have been doing all along.. ok, fair enough. Then I have 2 questions for you to answer before I can ever take you and your knock-off Spurrier visors seriously, again. 1. When the player's rights to that scholarship and all those amazing benefits ends at the end of the year, why do you still continue to profit from their likeness and name? 2. How many of those poor souls who pay out-of-state tuition taking out student loans, as you described them yourself, would ever think of attending Oklahoma if not for the efforts of the football players and program? I mean, that's essentially the justification for the massive amounts of money you make as compared to the highest paid professor on staff, right? It's because you do more.. Ok, we're clear there.. So why are they any different? I had, nor did the original defendants, any intention on you having to answer that second question but since you decided that you forever own the names and images of those players no longer under contract, you have to answer the 2nd one as well.. ps question: Are you and your system saying that kids should stay home to go to school? I realize this is a last second entry, but I've got Mack Brown on hold on line 2 and he'd really like the answer to this as well.
I remember thinking it was silly to use past players on the cover, but then realized they couldn't use current players under NCAA rules. I always assumed they made a deal with the old players, and that was that. Apparently not. Oh boy. I can't believe they weren't sued earlier!
EA Sports is a world-wide very rich corporation. I'm sure that when the NCAA entered into an agreement with them, the NCAA demanded an indemnity and hold harmeless agreement. The reason why a check wasn't cut by the NCAA is that EA is the bag holder and chooses not to. You can keep ranting on all you want about the NCAA but they probably are just along for the ride.
fyi. this isn't me ranting, this is me showing you the NCAA is anything but an innocent victim along for the ride. They knew all along and participated actively in all this. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/11/ncaa_knew_ea_sports_video_game.html Why is it so hard to admit the NCAA is wrong? They've been wrong before. In the past, they've wronged people under contract or in membership, but now they've stepped in it because these people they wronged are NOT under their umbrella. Again, all either of them had to do was cut a check and keep on making the money. They won't admit it, so now THEY are endangering the game... not the past players, not the present players.. The NCAA is doing this.
Sorry O'Bannion and his bunch are just a bunch of greedy SOB's who would rather ruin a good thing for thousands of kids to get some money for themselves. They suck.