9th Circuit Upholds NCAA Can't Restrict Athletes

[RaychelSnr]

In case you've been living under a rock (or you just don't care), the NCAA and Ed O'Bannon have been in a legal war for a few years now. This has effectively ended the NCAA Football and NCAA Basketball franchises for the time being as the case works its way up the courts. Today, we're one step closer to the case going to the Supreme Court, as the 9th Court Circuit of Appeals ruled on the case.

Quote:

"We conclude that the plaintiffs have shown that they are injured in fact as a result of the NCAA’s rules having foreclosed the market for their NILs in video games. We therefore do not reach the thornier questions of whether participants in live TV broadcasts of college sporting events have enforceable rights of publicity or whether the plaintiffs are injured by the NCAA’s current licensing arrangement for archival footage"

Indeed, the 'number one factor holding back NCAA video game growth' as described by EA was the inability to use college athlete's actual likenesses in their games.

In the ruling, the court upheld the original ruling by Judge Claudia Wilken in saying:

Quote:

"The district court found that it is entirely possible that the NCAA will resume its support for college sports video games at some point in the future, given that the NCAA found such games to be profitable in the past, and that finding of fact was not clearly erroneous. Given the NCAA’s previous, lengthy relationship with EA and the other evidence presented, it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that the NCAA may well begin working with EA or another video game company in the future."

It would seem the crux of the matter at this point for the return of NCAA video games is the NCAA allowing a few things. First, allowing video games to be made again -- as the NCAA currently has a policy in place which doesn't allow for that. Second, the rules on athletes NILs being used would have to be changed. Third, compensation rules would have to be finalized.

What is more likely is that the NCAA will take this matter all the way to the Supreme Court as they have alluded to. A Supreme Court ruling could jeopardize the entire system of amateurism the NCAA has built, although there is no real beat on how the Supreme Court might rule since the case hasn't been argued.

As far as a return of NCAA Football goes, this case continues to hold up any possibility of that because it is preventing any of the three questions above from being definitively answered. Not only does this case need a final resolution, but systems will need to be put in place for the games to have a chance at returning. At this point, you are easily 24-36 months away from that becoming a reality on any fast-tracked solution sans a miracle, which puts the arrival date of any future game years into the future.

[scraw28]

or they will have to wait until the outcome of the 2016 elections

[HenryClay1844]

So, does this mean that the NCAA and the various colleges cannot restrict athletes or anyone from selling their imaging rights?

[AyeBruhChill]

The whole notion of "amaueturism" that the NCAA tries to project is nonsense. Are these kids student-athletes? Yes. But this idea that a full ride is adquate compensation and other rules resctrictions under the guise that it is unfair to the student population as a whole is garbage. The NCAA makes a near billion dollar profit of the labor of "amateurs". ESPN doesn't have a 8 billion dollar tv deal for the student body, they have it for "amateurs". These universities make millions of dollar on "amateurs". Urban Meyer, Nick Saban, Kevin Ollie make 5+ mill to coach "amateurs". The money they make their schools well covers their free rides.

These kids should have a right to their individual brand on things outside of university revenue. They should be able to sell rings and sign autographs. Those things are valuable because of the work THEY did. They should get a cut of their jersey sales and they should be compentsated for things like video games.

They need to resolve this, because no one is winning, both in video games and real life.

I mean college hoops 2k17?! Nuts

[GLO]

Aye,

I respectfully disagree. Being someone who has tens of thousands of dollars in college loan debt, it would appear that education does have a very real monetary value, especially if you go to a large school where tuition can range anywhere from $20k-70k a year.

You can't have it both ways. Either education isn't worth anything and nobody should EVER have to pay for it. OR Education is worth the tens of thousands of dollars that they charge for it and be receiving a "full ride"the athletes are getting more than fair compensation for the GAMES they play as student athletes.

So which is it for you?
Education = no value?

[mike24forever]

GLO,

No one paid to watch you study or write an exam, or made a video game of you doing it. I'm an educator and I believe student athletes deserve at least a guaranteed 4 years of education and an ability to make money off of their image, above and beyond their scholarship. Of course education has value, but so does their image.

[canes21]

The education does hold value, but the athletes should be able to do what they want with their image at the same time. If an athlete wants to sing autographs or even sign a minor contract with Nike for a commercial or advertising, they should be allowed. Those are not mutually exclusive events. As for the players getting paid for being in a video game, I can't go into detail about how I feel on that subject because I honestly do not know how I feel.

[goillini03]

Quote: Originally Posted by canes21

The education does hold value, but the athletes should be able to do what they want with their image at the same time. If an athlete wants to sing autographs or even sign a minor contract with Nike for a commercial or advertising, they should be allowed. Those are not mutually exclusive events. As for the players getting paid for being in a video game, I can't go into detail about how I feel on that subject because I honestly do not know how I feel.

I agree mostly with this. I think that brands could not align with a college athlete if the university has ties to a brand. Part of the brand money that the schools get go towards funding of the program. There is a fine line that would need to be discussed.