Maybe I'm taking this the wrong way, but by taking the settlement it proves to me that they really didn't care about players likenesses being "abused". That they were just selfishly worried about lining their own pockets.
$40 Million Settlement - Video Games
You are taking this the wrong way.
its all about the money. no one was harmed through use of likeness and no one is suing to stop the practice. they just want a cut of the money.
something tells me you would feel wronged if someone else made millions off of your work.
You're taking this the wrong way. The lawsuit was over player's likenesses being "abused" and the players not being compensated for that. As reparations for that, they wanted to be retroactively compensated. So by taking the settlement, they achieved both goals.
Also, the goal of the lawsuit was never to completely blow up the NCAA model. One lawsuit alone can't do that. But it was certainly the first salvo in several lawsuits that will eventually change the NCAA model.
If you want to be pissed at someone, be pissed at the NCAA and school presidents for raking in all of this extra money over the last decade or so and never thinking of the long term consequences of that. After signing giant new TV deals, they could have said, hey we're going to pass some of this on to the players through full cost of attendance scholarships or something like that. But for a variety of reasons (mainly greed) the did nothing, and as a result created this monster and backed themselves into a corner where the only option is to blow the whole thing up.
They took the settlement because it makes the most sense for the class. While one or two parties in the class, like the O'Bannon's, would probably be fine with continuing on with litigation, being part of a class action means the goals of the whole class take precedent, and there can be a decision made by that group to settle and move on.
This is only a settlement with EA. The NCAA case is still ongoing.
When I was younger I would have done anything to be in a video game and would have been honored that it had my likeness. So I guess after all this a few players get some cash and everyone loses. Groundbreaking for players, sure, but the more and more this becomes a business I'd guess you continue to see attendances fall and the support of college football and basketball decline. That's why I think pro sports lost it's appeal to me when I got older. Just my opinion but it is just a game and it's supposed to be competitive but still fun.
So when coaches ADs and bowl directors make money it's fine. But when the players get a cut it's now just the NFL and everyone loses...
I really have a strong desire to punch Ed O'Bannon right in his mouth. Ruined college video games for the sake of probably $200 per player listed as a defendant.
It's a bummer that, yeah, other sports will not be able to exist. And it's a bummer that the only "winners" are former college stars who couldn't cut it in the pros, for what is hopefully chump change for them.
I hear you, man. I can't believe that he and thousands of other athletes wouldn't agree to continue to have their likenesses exploited so that other people could get rich and you could enjoy playing a video game!! Those selfish bastards! Ed, think about the kids and their desire to play video games before you go and worry about your well-being or health next time, prick.
Yeah, stupid athletes and their desire to be treated as people with interests in a money-making endeavor. I absolutely agree that you not being able to enjoy playing video games completely justifies your desire to punch one of them in the face.
Should NFL players take less or no money so there can be a professional field hockey or wrestling league with world class facilities?
Should petroleum engineers take less or no money so people can have top flight resources to study ancient languages?
Maybe your answer is yes, but that dives into a whole mess of off limit topics.
It's different. College sports =/= professional sports despite generating revenue.
For now it doesn't. Give it a few years though and that'll probably be different.
It does when revenue = extreme profit largely because the product involves people that aren't allowed to be paid.
This isn't really the argument, is it? The better question would be should NFL players not get paid for sales of their likeness so that Roger Goddell and the head of PR for the Browns can get paid a bit more.
All of these other sports existed just fine when schools were making like $4m in profits. But now that they are making $100m+ in profits, suddenly tennis and wrestling and field hockey are all in dire straits? Bull shit.
Can you point to anything that shows all these schools that are making 100M+ in profits?
Based on the 2011-12 information in the link above only 23 schools turned a profit. And the largerst amount was 32M.
I mean realistically I should be all for this as Michigan is up at the top of that list and will likely funneling money into "buying" recruits. I just don't really think I want to see this in college football.
I would much prefer the NFL remove its draft rule and all anyone who wants to enter at 18.
I would rather see the top 15-20 (hell the top 200) members of each recruiting class go to the NFL directly that see the college ranks turn professional.
I didn't say all schools make $100M, just some. But a lot of them in the power five are bringing in an awful lot of money from their own networks and from the TV contracts. How much "profit" they make is highly dependent on what kind of accounting trickery they want to use.
Either way, the fact remains these schools were generating fractions of the money they were a decade or more ago and they were doing just fine finding a way to support multiple sports. And while revenues have increased by multiples of ten or more, I haven't seen a huge uptick in the number of sports added. So the crying poor argument doesn't hold up.
And for better or worse, letting 18 year old kids into the NFL would be an awful idea. Just look at the NBA as an example of how the quality of play gets watered down when you get dozens of kids every year entering the league relying on little more than a year of college coaching and whatever nonsense their AAU or HS coach taught them. If they taught them anything at all.
Most of the schools under discussion are public schools so if they were actually making $100M+ there would be someone demonstrating the accounting trickery you are referring to. At the very least it would be coming out in the multiple trials that have been going on.
I didn't say you said all of the schools are making $100M+ I asked you to list the ones that are. I've looked and the best I can find was a $32M profit by A&M and about 15-20 schools turning a profit depending on the year. I'm not saying your are wrong but if I am wrong I want to have the resource to know it.
The simple matter is that the money given to players (and I am not against things like 4 year scholarships and health care) HAS to come form somewhere. I agree that schools are spending a lot more on things like facilities and sending coaches out for recruiting in the revenue sports but these are largely regarded as the cost of doing business.
Football brings in money -> spend money on football to keep up recruiting -> put a better team on the field -> football brings in more money.
Its easy to say "well they shouldn't build that new weight room" but that weight room is going to bring in recruits/coaches who are going to help you win which will in turn generate revenue for your atheletic departmart.
its not like schools are really trying to control their expenses these days.......
I think this is the key. Profits are irrelevant because the people running athletic departments don't have a profit incentive. They have an incentive to earn as much revenue as possible and then spend it on salaries. In the long run, athletic departments won't earn a profit. That doesn't mean they don't earn revenue that could be spent on athletes instead of coach bonuses and jumbotrons.
But the thing is, you never played high-end ball. You never had to sacrifice years of your life, your health, your time, etc. for the sport. It's always easy to be a fan, because the relationship can be as involved as you want it to be. But these kids were the ones on that field, making it enjoyable for you. If they don't feel they are being treated properly, they are within their right to address those grievances. And before anyone says "then don't play college sports", that's a weak argument that flies in the face of numerous other catalysts for change in this country and beyond. Jackie Robinson didn't have to break the color barrier, the US didn't "have" to go into space, same-sex couples don't need to marry. I'm not trying to make this political, and I absolutely understand that players getting paid for their likeness doesn't rise to this level of national or historic relevance, but sometimes the people most intimately involved in the issue have to be the ones that initiate the change, even if they technically have the option to not be involved.
I think players should receive a portion of money from the sale of their jerseys and video games however I am opposed to paying them. They already get it better than 99.9 percent of the student body. They get free room/board, gym membership, food/dining halls, nutritionists, strength coaches, tutors. All of this stuff would cost thousands of dollars and they get it for free.
Also, if you directly paid college athletes, atthletic departments like WMU or Purdue would collapse. Places like Michigan, Alabama, Texas, Ohio, and PSU would win national championships every time since they can afford to pay the most.
They already win national championships every year. D-II and D-III schools support entire athletic departments without any revenue from the teams they produce. The likes of WVM and Purdue will be fine.
C'mon...Purdue and Western Michigan will never, ever win a national title in football. The playing field for them is already uneven. The top schools you listed are the top schools for a variety of reasons that those schools and many others will never be able to replcate -- history, location, facilities, built in fan base, etc, etc.
College sports is changing because as it has gotten more and more popular and profitable, the schools never found a way to pass that on to the athletes. Little schools are fighting to hold back the bigger schools from the inevitable and its damaging college sports as a whole.
Read this article if you want some more insight into what is going to be happening soon to college sports.
the same players that are going to western and purdue, the 3-stars and the occasional 4 star, will still end up at those schools, there will still be scholarship limits
I don't get how people complain every time Brian posts about player compensation issues and then use the same tired arguments that Brian and others have destroyed a million times over.
Maybe a lawyer here can answer this.
I would think the company making the most money off players likeness is ESPN/ABC/Disney. Do they hide behind the first amendment? What point do they cross the line between "press" and "entertainment"? Video games are entertainment. Seems going after the networks would be the way to go. After all they are the ones paying billions to profit off the players and universities.
The difference is that the schools/conferences are selling the rights to broadcast the sporting events that they are holding. Networks pay them for the exclusive right to set up shop in their facilities to broadcast the event. Its not a press event. The press conferences after the game are open to members of the press, you don't have to pay for it, and anyone with a credential can set up a camera and record video of it to use under the guidelines of the press credential (i.e. you can't take things Hoke says in a press conference and cut it up so he's now endorsing the totally awesome product you're selling).
With the video games, no one was providing permission to use the player's likeness. The schools would exclusively license the use of their logos, uniforms, stadiums, mascots, etc and all of that was in the game in exchange for money. Same concept as TV. The problem was that all of the players in the game just so happened to match the players on the field exactly through height and weight, age, class, skin tone, skill set, etc. No one was licensing that, but it was the key draw in the game. People wanted to play NCAA 2012 because you could play as Denard under Michigan.
So the difference wasn't entertainment vs press. It was EA and the NCAA were working together to get the players in the game, but were doing a really shitty job of hiding that, which is why they lost the case.
They already run deficits. Only a few schools turn profits. When you add on the cost of paying football players, bball players, golf players etc. it's not feasible. Yea, they already win most of the titles but paying players would make it virtually impossible for Iowa State to ever beat Texas or Washington State to ever beat USC. The programs with the most money would be able to sign 20 5 stars every class.
All of this, all of it, already happens. Honestly, without looking it up, when were the last two times Minnesota beat Michigan? Top tier programs in BCS conferences recruit whomever they want and always sign the best talent in the country or the very least, their region. The only thing paying players will do is add in a new wrinkle into the arms race that is college athletics. Schools are already trying to out spend each other with stadiums, training facilities, athletic staff (yes, coaches), training facilities, etc. Some athletic programs may run deficits. Can't say I know any figures of the top of my head, but maybe. Even MAC size conferences have TV contracts, and their teams generate a lot of money off their brand selling shirts, hats, shorts, bumperstickers, liscence plates, even those stupid flags you can pinch between the door of your car. Every single D-1 athletic department makes more than enough money to pay players. The only difference now, is that the school and it's employees get rich off of it. I have no problem giving players some kind of marginal income. Some kind of cap could be a good idea. Max 10K a year?
and then compound the disparity that already exists with the fact that only a few schools can offer a recruit millions that he can't get at the lesser schools. You'd get about 5 super teams with the Jabrill Peppers', Dawshawn Hands, Laquon Treadwells etc. at every position. 10,000 cap would still be detrimental with half of the BCS conference teams currently in deficits. Even if it were possible, I don't feel that it's right to pay for a player's education which is probably worth 45-50K at UM and then give him 10K a year on top of that.
Super teams like Bama, Oregon, Ohio, Florida State, Texas, and Notre Dame? They already have depth charts full of 4 and 5 stars at every position. How many athletes do schools have each year? 2000? IDK, I'm asking. Even still, 10K x 2000 is 20 million. Schools can scrape together 20m. Ticket sales and tuition might go up, but they already do every year!
While I do agree that you have to pay the players at this point, and that there should be a cap of some sort, what happens to the non-football and non-basketball sports? Do they get paid equally? Or do they basically become financed by donations? We could be looking at the John Doe Family Michigan Field Hockey team in the near future.
Sure. Does it really matter if John Doe is remembered for creating some long lasting interest earning endowment to pay players? Would be similar to what already happens with academic scholarships. Hell, every building on campus is named after some rich alumni donor too.
That was not meant to be interpreted as a complaint. I would actually not have a problem with that at all. That was just a prediction of things to come.
Exactly. The argument for playing players is the argument against caps: that the schools are conniving to deprive players of the "millions they make for the school."
The real argument against players as employees is, IMO, "why would anyone want to watch an inferior NFL?" I think you can certaiinly make an argument for student-athletes getting paid "the full cost of attendence," but once you go to the employee model, college sports is dead.
I wonder what people will think of the ruins of former college footbal stadiums in 50 years. Will they be museums to the dead game, or just torn down for rezoning?
That's an easy one. 2005 and 1986.
I couldn't tell you the last two times Indiana beat UM though
Yeah and only three times in more than 40 years! Point is that they can't compete as is. paying players isn't going to create trends that don't already happen.
No I pretty much agree with you, I just felt like answering some 6 a.m trivia
Average head coach salary at D1 football programs is now up to 1.6 million. Or enough to pay the 85 scholarship players an extra $18,500 a year. The average at schools that regularly show up in the top 25 is the equivalent of more than 36,000 per scholarship player. Schools run deficits because competition dictates they spend all available revenue trying to compete. Right now, that's just going to coaches, facilities, and guys who organize things like the Weedeater Bowl, and NCAA suits, instead of players. I'd guess that Iowa would field a better team almost immediately if the paid players the $42,000 a year Ferentz's salary represents, and let a graduate assistant coach the team.
Interesting how much of the argument against is that schools can't afford to pay the kids. They don't have to. Let the people selling video games, jerseys, etc pay them for using their likenesses. They get some money, the schools continue to do things as they have been, and everyone gets to share in the success of college football.
The issue isn't about schools paying kids. It's about the NCAA not allowing the kids to in any way profit from playing college sports even though there are millions upon millions of dollars changing hands everywhere else.
1987, and 1967, Indiana's only Rose Bowl year.
They tied with Purdue and Minnesota. Purdue barred by no repeat rule, Indiana won the tiebreaker because Minnesota had been to the Rose Bowl more recently
How does the first amendment apply to selling someone's likeness without their permission?
"...lose opportunities for their futures."
Lose opportunities compared to what? I don't understand what he could truly mean by that.
Are not allowed to enroll in demanding majors based on athletic time commitments.
Also, many players suffer injuries that drastically reshape their future health wise, sometimes paralysis.
Because of the time restraints placed on them, Id much rather see a system where they get vouchers or something like that for semesters of college for every year they're on a team. That way, if/when they crash out of the NFL or finish with college, they can devote themselves full time to an academic path of their own choosing.
If high schools were making billions of dollars off HS football and basketball, then yes, they should provide the same. But they aren't, can't, and shouldn't have to. College on the other hand certainly has the means to do it at the top level but won't or can't do it because of their inability to alter their own outdated rules.
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 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.
I am certain the $13.2 million in legal fees have NOTHING to do with these waves of lawsuits either.
Even lawyers' babies gotta eat, man. Sure, it's only the best beluga caviar, but still...
for over a decade, was able to take in profits from a game in which the digital players were created--to the best of the current technology's capability--to like and play like those players, wore the same numbers, came from same hometowns, etc. etc. ad naseum to the real players for that same school...all while claiming the players are entirely fictional...that is a slap in the face to common sense and decency.
SCREW whoever ended the video games. Now I actually have to go out on Friday nights before games with actual people.
Title IX, discuss. You can spin all the hypotheticals you want about the NFL being required to support the National Art History League, and why the extra money should be going to the players of revenue sports. The flat fact is that Title IX exists, it applies to college athletics, and it's going to stay on the books for the foreseeable future. Reforming the NCAA is a noble goal. Making simplistic statements that ignore the rhinoceros in the living room is not helpful.
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.