Quote:
Originally Posted by WVUFAN
They are being compensated, by a) Receiving a free college education, and b) Having the opportunity to play in the NFL, because the NFL required college sports experience, the fact that the NCAA/college is providing you that, free of charge, is compensation enough.
The Croc Hunter analogy doesn't fit at all. Sam Keller didn't have to play sports at ASU or Nebraska, he did so willingly under the idea that he could parley his time into a career in the NFL.
His "likeness" in a video game is no different than his likeness on an ESPN highlight -- ESPN, like EA, is benefiting financially, and Keller is benefiting by hightened exposure and a free education.
|
You're nuts if you think the free education is market value for every college football player. And that's what matters. As stated above, the real target of the suit is the NCAA's rule barring the players from reaching their own endorsement and marketing deals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atocep
Pretty much. There's been players speak out against Keller essentially saying everyone they know loves seeing themselves in the games and would rather have it that way than have fictional players in their place.
|
Once again, the end goal of the suit is to bar the NCAA from banning players from reaching their own deals. Not to keep the video game companies from being able to use the likenesses. The point is that the NCAA gets the money from EA so that EA can use the NCAA information. But the players get jack even though their likenesses are why the game makes money.