Antitrust Lawsuit Against NCAA

[waggy]

I don't think there's a specific thread on this subject yet, so here goes.

Came across this tidbit when reading about Williams retirement.


U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in San Francisco dismissed Redwood City-based video game maker Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) from a high-profile antitrust lawsuit challenging the NCAA's long-standing prohibition against paying student athletes for their performance.

But Wilken refused to drop the bulk of the case, which accuses the NCAA and its marketing company of operating an illegal sports marketing monopoly.http://www.mercurynews.com/other-sports/ci_18004077?nclick_check=1

[SixFig]

I totally understand where EA Sports and the Athletes are coming from.

However, every student who attends Xavier, for instance, has to sign an agreement which allows the university to use their image. My friend, for example, is featured prominently on a Xavier billboard on Dana. No royalties coming his way. Just because certain students (i.e. basketball and football players) are featured more doesn't mean they are exempt from that contract.

Finally, paying athletes to be in video games is financially unfeasible. Sure, Texas Florida UNC etc can afford to pay royalties but SE Missouri St. and Lamar can't afford to pay 13 athletes just because they are in EA Sports March Madness 2011. Furthermore, if you pay football and basketball players cause they appear in popular video games, you have to pay EVERY sport. Once Title IX gets involved...forget about it. Budgets are strapped and sports are being cut as it is.

[LA Muskie]

I totally understand where EA Sports and the Athletes are coming from.

However, every student who attends Xavier, for instance, has to sign an agreement which allows the university to use their image. My friend, for example, is featured prominently on a Xavier billboard on Dana. No royalties coming his way. Just because certain students (i.e. basketball and football players) are featured more doesn't mean they are exempt from that contract.

Finally, paying athletes to be in video games is financially unfeasible. Sure, Texas Florida UNC etc can afford to pay royalties but SE Missouri St. and Lamar can't afford to pay 13 athletes just because they are in EA Sports March Madness 2011. Furthermore, if you pay football and basketball players cause they appear in popular video games, you have to pay EVERY sport. Once Title IV gets involved...forget about it. Budgets are strapped and sports are being cut as it is.
I don't like anyone having to sign licenses (and I don't recall that being the case when I was at XU -- I was in various advertisements and they always asked me for a release at the time). But even then I could defend disparate treatment -- a regular joe doesn't have a market for his image and endorsement; an athlete does.

[xubrew]

I totally understand where EA Sports and the Athletes are coming from.

However, every student who attends Xavier, for instance, has to sign an agreement which allows the university to use their image. My friend, for example, is featured prominently on a Xavier billboard on Dana. No royalties coming his way. Just because certain students (i.e. basketball and football players) are featured more doesn't mean they are exempt from that contract.

Finally, paying athletes to be in video games is financially unfeasible. Sure, Texas Florida UNC etc can afford to pay royalties but SE Missouri St. and Lamar can't afford to pay 13 athletes just because they are in EA Sports March Madness 2011. Furthermore, if you pay football and basketball players cause they appear in popular video games, you have to pay EVERY sport. Once Title IV gets involved...forget about it. Budgets are strapped and sports are being cut as it is.

SixFig, I understand the specifics of the lawsuit to be different.

The athletes involved in the anti-trust suit aren't going after the individual universities. They're going after the NCAA league office. UCLA did not directly sell the images of Ed O'Bannon and the rest of the 1995 team to Electronic Arts. The NCAA did. UCLA isn't making any money off of it either.

In other words, if the court rules against the NCAA, it won't cost SEMO or Lamar a thing.

This case DOES have legs. I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, but at the very least they do have a case. The NCAA is banking on the release that incoming student-athletes must sign that allows them to use their images "forever and throughout the universe." That may be enough, but then again, it may not. There have been some cases in the record industry where rulings (or at least settlements) went the way of the musicians on the grounds that when they signed the contract, they didn't know what they were signing. Again, I'm not predicting that, but it's not impossible. That, and a significant portion of those players weren't 18 when they signed the contract.

They may settle. They may win a decision. They may not get a thing. However, I think the NCAA should be sweating this a little bit. There is some validity to this, and it may win in court.

I assume you mean Title IX and not Title IV. Title IV deals with federal money (not exactly sure how) and Title IX deals with descrimination based on sex. As I understand it, Title IX would not be involved at all. If former athletes receive money (or even current ones), and the money is taxable, then they are considered employees, and therefore title IX does not apply. That would also be the case if athletes began getting paid a salary. If that money were taxable, Title IX would not apply to them anymore.