1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

One for the little guys in Athletes v. NCAA

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by qtlaw, Mar 1, 2010.

  1. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    In related news, EA appears to be killing the NCAA basketball game franchise ...

    http://www.bristolpress.com/articles/2010/02/18/sports/doc4b7e082d6930a117634185.txt
     
  2. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    How do you figure "we" would be paying the athletes? It seems likes schools and the NCAA -- the people who exploit athletes to rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars -- would be the organizations who pay the athletes.

    What's wrong with expecting people who are using your rights to pay for them? Personally, I like money and don't think it's as awful as you seem to believe. In fact, I'm going to go crazy here and suggest that getting paid is a good thing. My wife seems to think so, even though I like my job.
     
  3. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    That's right. It is about money.

    The NCAA tries to claim it isn't. Everyone knows that they're full of shit.

    Where I would be concerned if I were O'Bannon and the other players is that courts have ruled that if players want to play NCAA sports, they have to voluntarily obey NCAA rules, even ones that screw them over. If nothing else, at least this will make the NCAA sweat.

    If I'm O'Bannon's lawyers, I'd make the argument that the NCAA doesn't need to market their players, since they're really only supposed to be college students. By marketing them, they're becoming a business.
     
  4. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Agree. If the athletes who play revenue-generating sports shouldn't get paid then the schools and NCAA and conferences shouldn't seek television and video game deals, either.
     
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Who kidnapped cranberry and who are you? Ed O'Bannon should be waiting on soup lines with everyone else, shouldn't he?!!? :)

    I'm of two minds. I hate the NCAA system and think it is akin to forced indentured servitude, which is why I love the players going to Europe and getting some $$ before they are allowed into the NBA now. At least it gives a few players (but only ones ridiculously talented at 18) a choice. I also know that players like Ed O'Bannon knew the deal with NCAA rules when they signed on to play college ball. I don't have a huge problem with this particular suit, though. The NCAA rules are basically a contract that players are forced to adhere to in order to have college athletic eligibility. O'Bannon is not a student anymore and he is not asking for eligibility to play under their rules. As I see it, when he signed on to be exploited by them for four years, he didn't also sign away his likeness for life. The NCAA are being pigs. This same exact issue has come up with the NFLPA -- I have friends whose images are used in video games on "classic teams" that were incorporated into video games. The NFLPA went to the star players (the Joe Montanas) and negotiated deals with them to stick their names in the games. Those guys got paid. And for the rest of the rosters, the video game company created players who are mirror images of the real players -- appearance, height, weight, stats -- but changed the name or kept them nameless. So the former players sued the union, which had actually gone to great lengths to screw the former players while in cahoots with the video game company (EA Sports).

    In the football players' case, at least those former players were pros who were being paid. I still think what the union is doing making money off their images now, while not paying the players, is wrong. But as bad as it is, man the NCAA are pigs in comparison. First they exploit the hell out of the players who see no money while the NCAA makes a ton off them as players (at least the players don't see anything legally within NCAA rules). Now they are trying to continue to exploit them, well after the "scholar-athlete deal with the devil" is done.
     
  6. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    Another thing that often gets glossed right over when making the argument that a scholarship is payment enough for these athletes is that the scholarships are for ONE YEAR.

    Each year, they have to be renewed. And at several big-time programs, that's no longer such a given. Alabama, Kentucky and quite a few others have been criticized recently for essentially cutting players based primarily on player performance.

    So, here's the deal: We bring you in, you earn us gobs of money and create an image that allows us to attract thousands of other students, we use your likeness to sell our jerseys, cups, caps and other products, we pay you with a comp that doesn't cost us much at all and at the same time prevent you, your family and your friends from benefiting in ANY WAY from your talents. Oh, and did we mention that if you're not as good as we initially thought, we'll cut your ass.
     
  7. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Anybody have any idea what the revenue these athletes generate is used for?
     
  8. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    Mostly athletics.

    But it's very hard to assign a dollar amount to what athletics mean to a school. I mean, how much is three hours of mostly positive coverage from a major network a few times a year worth to a school in terms of recruitment and donations?

    It's hard to place a real value on what athletics brings in. But it's safe to say that it's a very profitable endeavor for these schools and the NCAA.
     
  9. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    So if you can't assign a dollar amount to it, how are we supposed to decide what these guys are allegedly owed?
     
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    It will actually be pretty easy to determine (from the financial records) how much the NCAA licensing arm made on any video game and memorabilia deals that used the likenesses of former players.
     
  11. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    That's the other thing. Supposedly, the licensing rules are buried in the LOI paperwork that O'Bannon and the others signed. Yet,the LOI is only supposed to be for one year.

    Are those licensing agreements in the scholarship papers for the following year or not? If they're not, this could end up being like the reserve clause in baseball, where the owners tried to claim that having the contract renewed for the following year meant in perpetuity even if the player didn't sign the contract.

    It could get even more interesting, unless the NCAA covered its ass by having the players give away their licensing rights each year.
     
  12. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    A lot of athletes have access to tutors who help with their courses, both on campus and on road trips. It's not like these student-athletes are handed books, told to get to practice and have to do it all themselves without some game plan for what happens in the classroom.

    Re: lawsuit, don't this is more than about the "classic" teams on video games. Every time they show Laettner's memorable game-winner against Kentucky, everyone from Laettner to crying Thomas Hill to the Kentucky defenders have a right to claim money. Ditto Bryce Drew's miracle game-winner for Valpo from 1998 and any other clip you've seen appear in commercials for the NCAA and its sponsors. Classic jerseys you can buy at schools -- like the Four Horsemen at Notre Dame, Jordan at UNC or the 1966 Texas Western team -- would be subject to royalties.

    This lawsuit intrigues me like none other has in quite some time.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page