$40 Million Settlement - Video Games
College football and basketball players have finalized a $40 million settlement with a video game manufacturer and the NCAA's licensing arm for improperly using the likenesses of athletes, leaving the NCAA alone to defend itself in the upcoming Ed O'Bannon antitrust trial.
In the end, according to the agreement, 77 percent of the funds that are due to players (after lawyer fees) will go to the class of players represented by Berman, who sued the NCAA on behalf of former Arizona quarterback Sam Keller. Just over 12 percent will go to players in the class represented by O'Bannon, the former UCLA basketball star. The final 10 percent will go to the class represented by former Rutgers football player Ryan Hart and former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston.
Additionally, O'Bannon, Keller, Hart and the other named plaintiffs would receive payments of $2,500 to $15,000 for their time and efforts in representing the classes.
If the settlement is approved by U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken, the lawyers will receive up to one-third of the settlement funds, or $13.2 million, plus a maximum of $2.5 million in legal fees that they argue is "particularly reasonable in light of the advanced stage of this case." They state that the collective lodestar, or total amount of legal services expended, by the various plaintiffs' firms that have worked on the Keller, O'Bannon and Hart-Alston cases exceeds $30 million, plus expenses of $4 million.
Michigan Related BOMBSHELL:
In June 2013, former University of Michigan president James Duderstadt wrote that "(in) a sense, the NCAA's objective is to preserve the brand so that it provides revenue primarily for a small number of people who get very, very rich on the exploitation of young students who really lose opportunities for their futures. ... And that's what's corrupt about it. The regulations are designed to protect the brand, to protect the playing level and keep it exciting, not to protect the student athletes."
Lose opportunities compared to what? I don't understand what he could truly mean by that.
Also, many players suffer injuries that drastically reshape their future health wise, sometimes paralysis.
Should high schools also be providing topical as well as long term care and compensation for those athletes that suffer injuries?
really isn't about compensation for the student athletes per se, it's about separating universties from too much money. Certainly you agree that a concussion suffered at 16 years of age is just as debilitating as one suffered at 20, yes? I imagine the same could be said for a broken neck.
It's about not exploiting people for obscene, unearned profits. What's so hard to understand about that?
And when a kid gets injured playing a HS sport, he may have legal recourse for compensation.
All of these "slippery slope" and extreme ends arguments distract from the core point being fought here - should athletes at schools be given protection and a say in how their service to the university teams is treated. It's not about wealth redistribution or assigning blame to specific institutions, and I suspect only the most passionate believers expect ongoing medical care to be part of any agreement between athletes and schools. But athletes in all sports, but especially in revenue-generating ones, create a positive gain for the university and the NCAA that in no way is offset by scholarships and bags of clothing given to them by reps for whatever apparel company the university signed a deal with. If they are hurt while playing for their team, the school and/or the NCAA should have a mechanism in place to help defray the costs of rehabilitation and ongoing treatment before while at school and beyond. And for all the doom and gloom about abuse and the negative impacts on other sports, it feels less based on hard numbers and calculations and more on fear of the unknown, which isn't a good reason not to at least give it a try.
But athletes in all sports, but especially in revenue-generating ones, create a positive gain for the university and the NCAA that in no way is offset by scholarships and bags of clothing given to them by reps for whatever apparel company the university signed a deal with.
Economically speaking, this isn't really true. Demand for these scholarships far outstrips supply, which suggests that schools could offer far less to the athletes and still fill the slots.
That's true, but players of a certain caliber are not fungible; there are only so many players a year who perform up to the "standards" that a school feels is worthy of a scholarship. With few exceptions, I'm guessing the number of Big-5 conference-caliber players produced each year is pretty inelastic. So while they could try offering different compensation levels and might be able to squeeze more out than they already are, I'm guessing you'd see even more stratification between the haves and have nots.
Can current players who weren't involved in the suit allowed to sue once they graduate now? Should have pretty good precedent for a quick settlement if they were in NCAA 13 or 14.
are the 40 or so walk-ons, a group of players with which no program can dispense.
Shhh, don't talk about them, they don't deserve any attention because they are obviously of means and don't mind paying out of pocket for the utter privilege of having their heads handed to them on a daily basis.
Are you talking about the walk-ons at UM? With rare exception, if they are in the game then they have a right to be a part of any lawsuit about use of their likeness in the game.
Or do you mean walk-ons in general? In that case, I'm sure any revamping of the NCAA's treatment of scholarship-athletes will include some language on their treatment and options. Probably won't be as great as scholarship athletes, but who knows.
The DoE will issue guidance about how to deal with "the rhinoceros in the living room" soon enough. What reasonable worry do you actually have, what particular part of Title IX is it based on, and what evidence do you have that that will be interpreted in a way that justifies your worry? If you can't answer those questions, you don't get to derail the conversation.
Was it wrong to use players likeneses for profit? Yeah. But what did this lawsuit really accomplish?
A few players got a few hundred bucks.
We will never EVER see another NCAA football or basketball video game.
So was it really worth it?
Do you honestly believe that a multi-million dollar set of franchises are dead because of a lawsuit? Depending on how the NCAA case breaks, you could see EA rebegotiate with the NCAA very soon for new licensed games.
I don't thinik EA is going to touch NCAA games with a 10 foot pole after this. Not with so much liability at stake.
I guess it is possible that we will see something with totally generic teams that don't have any resemblance to the actual teams. But I doubt we are going to see something that strives to model the actual teams ever again. Maybe they could create compeltely fake rosters and leave it editable so that the internet community could make the real ones or something, but that is about the best I can imagine.
It's crazy the amount of stuff they get just by being in the Big Ten tournament or NCAA tournament or bowl games. Ipods, cell phones etc. As a current college student they get off way better than we do. They get to pick their classes before anyone else etc.
And for that they have to spend 40+ hours a week in addition to all their school work on their sport. Plus deal with the very real risk of long term injury.