12/21/24
July 21, 2009
Ed O'Bannon Leads Class Action Suit by Former Athletes Against NCAA: Former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed for all current and former Division I-A football and men’s basketball athletes against the NCAA. The suit, sparked by O'Bannon's continued use in an EA Sports video game for which he gets no compensation, claims the NCAA "has illegally deprived former student-athletes" from revenue streams including DVDs, video games, memorabilia, photographs, television rebroadcasts and use in advertising. "When you’re in school you’re obligated to live up to your scholarship," said O'Bannon, now 36. "But once you're done, you physically, as well as your likeness, should leave the university and the NCAA."
I'm with you bperk. I had this same argument in another thread about the fact that in the old versions of EA NCAA football (not sure if it still applies), even though the players had no names, if you rename them in the game the announcer would then say their real names.
So you have a QB named "Player 1" for Florida that's 6-3, 240, same hairstyle, wears number 15, has higher ratings in power running than any other QB, and if you rename him to "Tebow", then the announcer says "And Tebow completes the pass out to the 30".....yet this isn't his likeness? Come on.
posted by bdaddy at 10:44 AM on July 22, 2009
On one hand, I see where the players certainly have a case. I've never defended the notion of paying the players while they are in school (they are paid...it's called a scholarship, plus you'd be opening up an awful can of worms with Title IX), but the after-the-fact stuff is a whole other matter. The NCAA is definitely making money off the player's likenesses, no question.
On the other, I somehow fear this might do more harm than good for the fans at home like myself. If the former players win some sort of massive settlement and this causes a change in the way this is handled down the line, what will that mean? Does the video game line die out completely? (What's the point of releasing a new version every year with completely generic players?) Or will the NCAA try to recoup the losses some other way (more advertising, increased ticket prices)?
I'm not saying the players shouldn't be compensated, but I don't want to see the NCAA get completely hammered on this, either.
posted by TheQatarian at 11:01 AM on July 22, 2009
I hope O'Bannon and the other plaintiffs win the right to money they rightfully should have earned. Going to college on scholarship does not give your school perpetual rights to make money on your name and likeness.
Frankly, I'd like to see current players earn a portion of the revenue they generate for their schools. Major college sports are pro for everyone but the players. Coaches and schools get endorsement deals and sponsorships. I don't think players should be able to negotiate contracts, but they shouldn't have to scrounge for living expenses. Playing for a major team gives them almost no opportunity to work a side job.
posted by rcade at 12:03 PM on July 22, 2009
It all boils down to "There's money out there, and I want some of it". EA Sports and the NCAA did not make any offer to current and former players to use their images. These players say they should have some compensation. One question to be answered is what is the nature of the player's scholarship with an NCAA member school. Does accepting a scholarship assign all of a player's commercial rights (for endorsements, use of image, etc.) to the school and ultimately to the NCAA? I don't know this for a fact, but I would bet that there is no such clause in a scholarship offer that deals in commercial rights. This will make for some interesting legal wrangling.
posted by Howard_T at 02:51 PM on July 22, 2009
I'm with rcade on the compensate players thing. Scholarship does not commiserate with the $ they bring into these institutions.
UT football brings in some 60 million in revenue each year (40 million profit), and these players see, what $10k-15k of that each year? (legally, at least) They need a union :-)
Playing for a major team gives them almost no opportunity to work a side job.
I don't think it's even allowed. Unless it's changed from my days, the college athlete wasn't allowed to get a job except during the summers.
posted by bdaddy at 03:04 PM on July 22, 2009
Playing for a major team gives them almost no opportunity to work a side job. I don't think it's even allowed. Unless it's changed from my days, the college athlete wasn't allowed to get a job except during the summers.
Correct. I think the fear's that a booster will hirer an athlete for $100,000/year to get around the rules.
posted by jmd82 at 03:12 PM on July 22, 2009
10-15k a year is more than most college students are making a year; while they can't get side jobs during the year, they're able to work summer jobs to make some money to spend during the year. I didn't know a lot of Division 1 athletes who were starving (in comparison to their ramen eating classmates).
That said, those who are used in NCAA games should be paid their due once they're eligible pros.
posted by dfleming at 03:41 PM on July 22, 2009
"There are over 380,000 NC-double-A student-athletes and just about all of them will be going pro in something other than sports."
Playing for a major team gives them almost no opportunity to work a side job. I don't think it's even allowed. Unless it's changed from my days, the college athlete wasn't allowed to get a job except during the summers.
I'm curious, and perhaps one of you knows, does this apply to all college athletes or just ones on football and basketball teams? I realize that making separate rules could be discriminatory, but it would seem that you wouldn't have to worry about boosters giving out high-paying fake jobs to your swimmers and soccer players. Furthermore, schools have compliance departments. Can't they just confirm that the athletes are getting paid the same as their non-athlete coworkers?
posted by bender at 08:30 AM on July 23, 2009
I think the fear's that a booster will hirer an athlete for $100,000/year to get around the rules.
I have a relative that played football for a major university years ago. He wasn't a starter, but played a lot and was a big member of their special teams. At least 1 summer job he talked about he was getting some $11/hour where his other co-workers were making $4 or something like that. So he was getting advantages, but not exactly mega-money. And again, the money he made during the summer didn't equate to the spending $ other people were allowed to make during the full year.
10-15k a year is more than most college students are making a year
Yes, but those other students didn't make the university $40 million either. Nor did they put in 16 hour days between school/football during the season. (that's what I put in at a 1-AA school..I can imagine what they put in at the major football colleges). And yes, they aren't "starving", but they should be "thriving" given the $ they bring in.
posted by bdaddy at 11:38 AM on July 23, 2009
10-15k a year is more than most college students are making a year
There's no way that the athletes in top sports programs are making more money than the average college student who isn't in sports (leaving out the Reggie Bushes who are getting paid secretly, of course).
The athletes don't have the time outside of their sports to dedicate to a job.
At a minimum, they should be paid enough so that there's no need for them to cram in an outside job to go with their sports and their studies.
posted by rcade at 11:50 AM on July 23, 2009
And yes, they aren't "starving", but they should be "thriving" given the $ they bring in.
Olympic athletes should be thriving too, given that logic. That's the nature of amateur sports. You have access to player development tools, coaches, trainers, teachers, tutors and all the amenities of a full-service pro team at your disposal in an attempt to help you develop into the best player you possibly can be.
If you want to cash in right away, you can go pro after one year in college.
There's no way that the athletes in top sports programs are making more money than the average college student who isn't in sports (leaving out the Reggie Bushes who are getting paid secretly, of course).
The average student has their tuition and living expenses to pay, though, which is why they have a job in the first place. Well, that and beer money.
At my school, the basketball players never paid cover for any school event, never bought drinks at the college pub, got the best tutors with the program footing the bill and were even given a "stipend" of 20 dollars a meal, 3 times a day even if they were playing at home. They pocketed that money and/or ate on the cheap to make 60-90 bucks every weekend, which would be the equivalent of 6-9 hours of work a weekend for a college student.
posted by dfleming at 09:28 AM on July 24, 2009
At my school, the basketball players never paid cover for any school event, never bought drinks at the college pub, got the best tutors with the program footing the bill and were even given a "stipend" of 20 dollars a meal, 3 times a day even if they were playing at home.
At my school, the football players had to eat all together in athletic center cafeteria. They had to live together in dorms. They had mandatory study hall twice a day, and practice in both the morning and afternoon. They were not allowed to get anything free because that would be a NCAA violation. They were eligible for food stamps because they had no money. In the summer, they could only work for a small portion because they were "voluntarily" training. They brought in millions of dollars for the school.
posted by bperk at 09:56 AM on July 24, 2009
At my school, the football players had to eat all together in athletic center cafeteria. They had to live together in dorms. They had mandatory study hall twice a day, and practice in both the morning and afternoon. They were not allowed to get anything free because that would be a NCAA violation.
Right. They live for free. They get an education for free. They get gear for free. They eat for free (enough to gain weight every year). I know they're not swimming in disposable income but their cost of living is almost zero.
They brought in millions of dollars for the school.
Again, I defer to the "so do olympic athletes" argument. They choose to be amateurs; if they want to go pro, they can start earning for themselves. A lot of them do. Some see 4 years of free college (even if it's incredibly restrictive) as a good investment.
posted by dfleming at 12:46 PM on July 24, 2009
Olympic athletes in many sports are now pros, so I think that argument went out the door a few years back. Even soccer with the under-23 age rule (plus 3 'seniors'), almost all the players on all the squads are already pros.
In this situation a more reasonable compromise might be that player likenesses and names are okay to use during their college terms plus, maybe, one year. After that players should be paid.
posted by billsaysthis at 01:26 PM on July 24, 2009
Good. I am baffled as to what the NCAA's defense could even be. Presumably, they think the mere removal of O'Bannon's name is enough to make it a generic player rather than him. Obvioiusly, it isn't. I dislike everything about the NCAA. I would like to see them lose very big. The fact that they make current players sign contracts, so they can profit by selling their likeness is awful.