O'Bannon settles with EA and CLC in class action
O'Bannon settled with Electronic Arts and the Collegiate Licensing Company today. The only defendent left in the lawsuit now is the NCAA.
An interesting read from SI analyzing where the lawsuit goes from here. The O'Bannon class action could go after broadcasters next. One item I didn't know is the schools not represented by the CLC will probably try to push for the NCAA to settle as they will be more exposed in the lawsuit. Those schools include Ohio State and Michigan State. Not sure how that works but maybe someone here with a law background can break it down.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130926/mccann-obannon-ea-clc-settlement/
September 27th, 2013 at 8:07 AM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 8:10 AM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 10:20 AM ^
I love it. These student atheltes and former student athletes get a whopping 150 bucks a piece, while the lawyers swim in it. Great lesson learned by those who feel entitled. It will continue to work out this way. They will win nothing and thats the way it works. The lawyers are now the ones who are preying. I love every ounce of it.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:51 AM ^
Just to play Devil's Advocate...if the attorneys took the case on a contingency basis and outlayed all of the costs and their time, when they didn't know 1.) whether they could get a class of plaintiffs together, 2.) whether they would be able to get the class certified, 3.) they don't know how it's going to progress through discovery, and, most importantly, 4.) whether they'd be able to win at trial if the defendants took them all the way down that path. . . shouldn't they be compensated for that risk? There was and still is a non-zero chance that the NCAA (and formerly EA) digs in its heels and takes it all the way to trial, verdict, and maybe even appeal. If the plaintiffs are unsuccessful, on a contingency basis, the lawyers get zilch, and that after years and years of outlaying thousands of man-hours without seeing any compensation. It's a risk; usually, for big-time cases like this, the plaintiffs' firm has a "war chest" of monies saved up to spend on case costs so the plaintiffs can stay and fight the case out on merits all the way.
Also, if it was on an hourly basis, then what's the beef? The attorneys get paid for the time they spent on the case and the judge has to approve it.
(Note: I'm not saying I don't find issues with how class action plaintiffs' attorneys are compensated; I'm just saying that, if we're going to have that discussion, this example-- the O'Bannon suit- is way, way, way less egregious than in a lot of other cases).
September 27th, 2013 at 10:56 AM ^
or just the devil?
/s?
September 27th, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^
Class actions are important because, without them, it becomes worth it to rip off consumers to the tune of, say, $25 apiece. Most people aren't going to sue for an amount like that, so there is little fear of liability...There is a societal benefit that goes beyond the benefit to the plaintiffs.
September 27th, 2013 at 11:22 AM ^
Agree for the most part but... frivolous torts and patents however hurt society ... but... this case clearly is not frivolous. This settlement won't bring the role of the NCAA to point if settled out of court. The beat shouldn't go on with new high value players not getting just compensation for the dollars they bring in - even if their images aren't used in a video game. So the settlement process doesn't really serve the disadvantaged or lower income strata well in the end.
I'm not entirely well thought out on this... but class actions are good and bad - not all good. In the end they charge rich people/organizations the cost of business without justly compensating the poor or necessarily serving justice.
September 27th, 2013 at 12:27 PM ^
Your divorce didn't go well?
September 27th, 2013 at 8:11 AM ^
have deals directly with the networks/broadcasters, or does that money go through the NFL and its teams, who then pay the players? If not, I could see the O'Bannon lawyers targeting the schools, conferences, and NCAA, but not the networks/broadcasters.
September 27th, 2013 at 8:33 AM ^
They do, or at least they did at one point. That's why Barry Bonds was never in any of the MVP games - he refused to join the MLBPA or sign onto their marketing agreement or whatever.
I think targeting broadcasters is a stretch.
Personally, I have no sympathy for O'Bannon. He went to a good school and graduated debt free. Screw him if he thinks that's worthless. He knew what he was getting into.
September 27th, 2013 at 8:48 AM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 9:37 AM ^
If a player agrees to the terms, I don't think he should be guaranteed the opportunity to renegotiate them. Sure, it happens all the time in professional sports, but if it's not stipulated in the agreement, it's not guaranteed. I think if the NCAA would allow players to make endorsement deals, the problem would be solved. Once he became famous, Webber could have signed with Nike and made a fortune before going pro. If he was unhappy with his agreement, he could have left Michigan for the NBA or a minor league.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:27 AM ^
I'm just looking at it from a morality standpoint. There's no way we can know how much incoming freshmen scholar athletes really consider the college sports monetary issues we discuss ad nauseum on this board. Who knows whether these kids realize how much money the school gets from the jerseys with their number on them, etc., until after they see them hanging in the windows at MDen? And even then, maybe they don't think they're being screwed until they don't make it to the pros and realize that the thousands of hours they put into football hasn't set them up for a means to make money going forward.
In summary, I'm just not in agreement that these 17-18 year old kids really know what they're agreeing to until after the fact.
September 27th, 2013 at 11:34 AM ^
Isnt this how life works? If you start a business and it fails doesnt mean you get a mulligan because you didnt know what you were getting into.
September 27th, 2013 at 11:38 AM ^
But this lawsuit makes sense because it is going to prevent future players from unknowingly getting exploited by EA.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:24 PM ^
If given three choices: no NCAA football video game, a game with truly generic players, or a game with their names and likenesses but no compensation, which would most players prefer? I'm not arguing that what happened was right, but I wonder if it wouldn't have been more popular that what look to be the likeliest alternatives. Players should have at least been given the choice to opt out of being in the games, but I suspect not that many would have.
September 27th, 2013 at 2:02 PM ^
There names were not used in the games. Idc what people say about the platform of the game. The game could have simply left the game editable without names and numbers and let the purchasers of the game edit it all themselves. I still dont agree with this lawsuit and I think they shouldnt have settled either. If it were me Id find a way to keep it going just in spite of everything.
September 27th, 2013 at 6:45 PM ^
how Tom Monaghan built Domino's
September 27th, 2013 at 10:26 AM ^
I dont feel bad for a player who earned a four year degree from the University of Michigan without any debt. He also is so beloved as is any former Michigan player that he can come back to the state of Michigan and get a job just about anywhere he likes. Thats the benefit of playing for a program like Michigan. Student athletes dont make the school, its the school that gives them the platform to become who they are.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:30 AM ^
that actually track the future financial success of athletes from revenue-generating schools? Or are you just repeating a baseless narrative?
September 27th, 2013 at 10:36 AM ^
Baseless narrative it seems. I also don't get the vitrol he has. Fine, players shouldn't get paid. If this really about the love of the game, and the school and they're "student"-athletes can we get rid of the school endorsement deals, the 115,000 person capacity stadium, no more College Football shows, BTN networks, etc.
The players aren't ruining the game -- the administrators and all the money they brought into college football have. You can't really fault someone for trying to make a better position for themselves. I take it no one has asked for a raise at work?
You can't create a caste like system and expect people to be happy with it.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:42 AM ^
There are studies. If they go into the private sector, military, or "manual labor," they're going to make more money than non-athletes. However, a fair number wind up teaching high-school(!?) where they make the same as everyone else. I'd suggest that they're still at an advantage, even in those cases, because they have no student loan payments.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja…
September 27th, 2013 at 10:51 AM ^
looks at all NCAA athletes and had data from players in the 70s--not really what I was trying to get at. If I was going to make my own baseless narrative, I'dargue that athletes from non-revenue generating sport are going to be better students (higher admissions requirements) and are better able to utilize their college educations than many cfb and cbb athletes who "didn't come to play school."
September 27th, 2013 at 11:25 AM ^
The Game of Life by James Shulman and William Bowen would be another one. They looked at student-athletes from several schools (including Michigan and Penn State) over a fifty year time span and found that male student-athletes consistently earned more than non-athletes.
September 27th, 2013 at 11:28 AM ^
The Game of Life by James Shulman and William Bowen would be another one. They looked at student-athletes from several schools (including Michigan and Penn State) over a fifty year time span and found that male student-athletes consistently earned more than non-athletes.
Edit: It should be pointed out that part of this may have to do with career choice - student athletes are more likely to go into business and finance than non-athletes, apparently.
September 27th, 2013 at 11:34 AM ^
you obviously know your stuff.
I looked at the book description. Any insight onto what this means:
"They discover that today's athletes, more so than their predecessors, enter college less academically well-prepared and with different goals and values than their classmates--differences that lead to different lives."
To me, the narrative I would assume to be true is that big time athletes either make it to the pros or are boned because the average player either doesn't put in the effort into their education that the average student does, or is doomed from the start because their education level is so vastly beneath that of the average student and is only at that school because of sports.
September 28th, 2013 at 1:12 PM ^
However, a fair number wind up teaching high-school(!?) where they make the same as everyone else.Not surprising. Teaching high school can allow them to coach the HS football or basketball team. School districts generally prefer to hire a current teacher for a coaching position.
September 27th, 2013 at 11:38 AM ^
I dont need evidence to state the obvious. Life sucks and we cant all have a trophy. Some people have a means to survive in life and others just dont have it. The ones who are entitled are causing this, Its simple. All we are witnessing are lawyers getting paid. The student athletes will see no extra monetary benefit from any of this. Leaving well enough alone would have been the best route. Now these kids are learning that becoming a lawyer is better than trusting one.
September 27th, 2013 at 6:50 PM ^
what I believe was said above: "did ya have a bad divorce lawyer"? The only people I know who dislike lawyers as much as you clearly do usually think they lost in court at some point, most commonly in a domestic relations matter. You're missing the proverbial forest for the trees here.
September 28th, 2013 at 1:15 PM ^
Or are you just repeating a baseless narrative?I can't offer you hard data to back this up, but I can tell you that part of our recruiting pitch (and ND does the same) is that our huge alumni network can aid our former players in getting a job. And anecdotally, I know of a few of people who will gladly hire an ex-Michigan athlete, assuming he meets basic qualifications.
September 27th, 2013 at 2:04 PM ^
and dont be fooled. they will develop a game that can be editied by the die hards out there willing to do it. It will include the schools and etc but the players will have to be completely edited. This is a one or two year layoff.
September 27th, 2013 at 9:01 AM ^
I have very little sympathy for him. I would love to see the NCAA allow players to sign endorsement deals so players can make money off of their names, and if increasing their stipends so they can live more comfortably, I'm fine with that. I'm just worried this will go so far that it will destroy college football as we know it.
If the the schools did pay the players by having them sign a four-to-five year contract, to be paid an amount equal to the value of their current scholarships, but required that the players be enrolled in school, which they would now be responsible to pay, would that solve the issue? As an employee, if I demand more compensation, there is little I can do if my employer does not oblige but walk away.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:31 AM ^
I would make it a stipulation that if you take an endorsement deal, you pay your own way. The Idea of this is simple. If a player gets an endorsement greater than the cost of tuition etc... then he loses the benefit of the scholly. The player can still use the platform the University offers to build their brand but they lose out on the free ride. Kids gotta learn they cant have it all handed to them. Its a risky proposition for the player. Lose out on guranteed scholly and pay your own way using the big house as your stage or sign the the letter of intent and get the gurantee from the school.
September 27th, 2013 at 11:59 AM ^
Best idea I've heard so far. Kudos to you or whoever came up with that.
September 27th, 2013 at 3:12 PM ^
The problem with this idea is that it'd screw with competitive balance. A team with rich enough boosters could have 85 guys on scholarship plus another 10-20 getting "endorsements" while poorer schools are stuck with the 85.
September 27th, 2013 at 3:39 PM ^
September 28th, 2013 at 1:19 PM ^
How would you do that? The boosters could just find a friend who isn't affiliated with the school and funnel the cash towards him. There's basically no way to make it workable.
September 27th, 2013 at 11:58 AM ^
College football will not end. The NCAA will take the stance that plaers can go pro, or join a minor league system if they like, but if they do they lose the amature status and cannot longer be eligible to earn a scholly at a major school. I like this idea and it opens the eyes of these kids. Some wil try to go pro out of High School and many will fail and it will end like the XFL.
September 27th, 2013 at 9:25 AM ^
I don't have sympathy for O'Bannon either. He went to a good school that helped him earn the draft status he had in the NBA. In his NBA career, O'Bannon earned almost $4M.
I don't begrudge him his earnings. He earned and deserved that money. If he didn't realize it wasn't going to last (his knees should have been telling him that, if not the never ending parade of small forwards blowing past him on the court), shame on him.
It's no one else's fault that his knees kept him from sticking around in the NBA any longer than he did.
If he hadn't blown through $4M, he may not have a grudge against the NCAA.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:04 AM ^
O'Bannon doesn't care about the money, or at least he shouldn't because any settlement/verdict is not going to include him getting paid $$$$$$. For example, the players in the class action (including O'Bannon) are probably going to get like $100 out of the EA settlement. This suit is about changing culture, changing the law. You see the same kind of thing in Supreme Court cases that test new legislation. The plaintiff is often a law professor in those cases that is clearly not in it for the money. Like those "test cases" the main purpose of the suit is to protect players going forward, to give them rights they currently do not have. No use spending time dismissing the merits of the case based on sympathy for O'Bannon or former players. This is about the future of NCAA sports.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:19 AM ^
I never said he cared about getting money from the lawsuit, only that he held a grudge against the NCAA.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:36 AM ^
think who started this lawsuit and the circumstances for him personally starting it matters from a philosophical standpoint. All that matters is whether or not the EA was taking advantage of other people's likenesses...which they clearly were.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^
Not necessarily true. Named plaintiffs and/or class representatives usually get a much larger share of the settlement than Joe Classmember. O'Bannon's going to make some money off of this.
As for this being to "protect" future student-athletes, I'd ask why they need to be protected. It seems to me that getting a free college degree (and a master's, in some cases) is more protection than most students get. I would also question how this "protects" student-athletes in non-revenue sports, who are going to be the most affected by these changes. Not to mention the Title IX implications.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:39 AM ^
how athletes from non-revenue sports are going to be affected from the EA settlement...
September 27th, 2013 at 10:44 AM ^
If colleges are having to pay revenue athletes for use of their likenesses, they're goign to have less money for scholarships, equipment, training staff, coaches, etc. Where do you think those cuts are going to come from?
September 27th, 2013 at 10:53 AM ^
Men's LAX, Women's Field Hockey, Men's and Women's Cross Country, etc.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:54 AM ^
like $250 million in facility renovations and cuts in coach wages. Not sure why the highest paid state employee should be a head football coach.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^
Of course there are more reasonable places where cuts SHOULD come from, but that's not where they WILL come from. I'm with Urban Warfare on this.
This case already got its point across, IMO. EA was taken down a notch and the NCAA was scared shitless enough to divest itself from EA. I'm much more an advocate of the "stop exploiting players" outcome than the "pay exploited players" version.
September 27th, 2013 at 11:39 AM ^
then ticket costs are gonna keep rising and attendance is gonna keep dropping, and players are gonna keep getting screwed (in their mind) and thus gonna keep pressing for change.
I just find it funny that we can discuss these huge ideology shifts like getting rid of amateurism, but as soon as a person suggests change at the highest $$$$ level--ie., the level that would actually most efficiently fix things--it's always a naive pipe dream
But, at the end of the day, I do agree that stopping whatever potential exploitation was occurring is definitely the only necessary thing to do, and now that it is accomplished, hopefully nothing tooooo drastic happens (aka college sports dissolves).
September 27th, 2013 at 12:01 PM ^
Most head coaches earn the right. They start out making nothing as assistants at the lowest levels before they make it to the top. This is part of America. If we take away the things we aspire to be such as th emillions you could make by becoming a head coach, what will drive you to be successful? My boss at work makes 3 times what I do and I aspire to become what he is and know I have to earn it.