The NCAA Settles Video Game Lawsuit For $20 Million

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by DiscountCleric

Don't see it happening. Even paying a pittance, that's a ton of players making that amount and it'll add up fast. The NCAA games never sold that well and I don't think the extra income from actively marketing players in the game would offset the greatly increased licensing cost. I want it to happen, but I don't see how it makes fiscal sense.

A lot depends on how the dust settles. Now this is pure speculation on my part but I believe that the players' "likeness", if you will, would be part of the NCAA license seeing as they will be getting compensated in some fashion by the NCAA/Schools. That could include guaranteed scholarships, a stipend, the ability to profit off of their names and whatever other arrangements they come up with.

I just don't see the NCAA paying players to play because they hold the power. They have the exposure and access. Florida State will be Florida State with or without Jameis Winston. May not be as good, but Florida State is a brand and Jameis Winston benefits from playing there just as much as Florida State does. Look at college basketball. A player doesn't have to go play in college during his year removed from high school. But the overwhelming majority go that route because of the exposure. The D-league and Europe just don't compare to March Madness.

Back to the point...A Jameis Winston could sign autographs for $1000 cash and whatever else the market will bear. The NCAA may put it in a trust or something that he will have access to once he leaves or exhaust his eligibility. In exchange, the NCAA/Schools would have control over the players image in regards to TV, Video Games, and sports "media" during their tenure at the school. The NCAA isn't the only one getting paid in this scenario. So the NCAA license could include the players as part of the package. That may make the license more expensive, but from what I understand (which is very little), the schools make a relatively small amount of money on the video game license VS the TV contracts.

[Cam Fan]

My assertion is that any compensation for likeness will HAVE to be through the CLC (i.e., group licensing). I think both sides agree that this type of regulation is necessary. After this case is resolved, the next step is negotiation b/ EA and the CLC.

[JLoco11]

For those who think this settlement would lead to a quicker game, that's not exactly how it works... there are still a few more hurdles in the way that the NCAA won't budge on.

The main issue that will still keep the game off the market, is payment for current athletes, not past athletes. The NCAA conceded that likeness was used in this lawsuit, but the settlement clearly states the payment is not for performance. It's merely use of their identity in a game, under no wrong doing (big legal words for saying the NCAA doesn't admit guilt but will pay the Keller lawsuit).

O'Bannon's lawsuit is currently going on, and that's the main hurdle. That's the lawsuit that has to be settled before the games come back, and this is one that the NCAA will dig into. Keller's lawsuit was an easy fix (pay former athletes). O'Bannon's lawsuit is more complex (let current athletes get paid).

If the NCAA lost Keller's lawsuit, they could still keep their amateur rules. If they lose the O'Bannon lawsuit, they have to change all their amateur rules. NCAA doesn't want that dictated by a courtroom or lawyer.

Until this issue is settled, there won't be an NCAA game.

[Cam Fan]

Quote: Originally Posted by JLoco11

For those who think this settlement would lead to a quicker game, that's not exactly how it works... there are still a few more hurdles in the way that the NCAA won't budge on. The main issue that will still keep the game off the market, is payment for current athletes, not past athletes. The NCAA conceded that likeness was used in this lawsuit, but the settlement clearly states the payment is not for performance. It's merely use of their identity in a game, under no wrong doing (big legal words for saying the NCAA doesn't admit guilt but will pay the Keller lawsuit). O'Bannon's lawsuit is currently going on, and that's the main hurdle. That's the lawsuit that has to be settled before the games come back, and this is one that the NCAA will dig into. Keller's lawsuit was an easy fix (pay former athletes). O'Bannon's lawsuit is more complex (let current athletes get paid). If the NCAA lost Keller's lawsuit, they could still keep their amateur rules. If they lose the O'Bannon lawsuit, they have to change all their amateur rules. NCAA doesn't want that dictated by a courtroom or lawyer. Until this issue is settled, there won't be an NCAA game.

From what I've read over on SI.com, the case should be over in mere weeks. Most observers know the OBannon dispute was never really about pay for performance. We will know very quickly how soon a CFB game is possible. Even if the NCAA does prevail in total (which is unlikely), the power conferences are proposing changes that will alter the landscape.

[Big FN Deal]

My only concern with the NCAA football title potentially returning is that, I kind of want it to take another year so hopefully Tiburon adds all the relevant football stuff, that was available in the last NCAA, into Madden. When both games are made together, Tiburon seems to intentionally leave common football elements out of one or the other just to tout differences, it's quite frustrating, imo.

On another note, I hope when this all gets settled, other gaming studios start creating NCAA football games as well, to presumably push Tiburon to go all out on NCAA Football when/if it returns.

[Cam Fan]

Keep in mind that an injunction to allow players to seek compensation (likely in the form of group licensing) is what is really at stake in this trial. If Judge Wilken rules in O'Bannon's favor (and the NCAA doesn't appeal) things will move QUICKLY with regard to EA pouncing on the opportunity to produce CFB16.

[JLoco11]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cam Fan

From what I've read over on SI.com, the case should be over in mere weeks. Most observers know the OBannon dispute was never really about pay for performance. We will know very quickly how soon a CFB game is possible. Even if the NCAA does prevail in total (which is unlikely), the power conferences are proposing changes that will alter the landscape.

Not quite sure what you're reading, but clearly it's from a sportswriter, and not a legal expert on how the proceedings of the court system actually works.

The Plaintiff's (O'Bannon) case alone is scheduled for 3 weeks of witnesses... that doesn't include the defense questioning and rebuttal witnesses. It will most likely last 8 weeks, so if that qualifies as "mere" weeks, that's still a long initial trial.

But that doesn't include the number of appeals either party would have, in particular O'Bannon if he loses. He filed in California, which means he could have the potential for 6 appeals in the state if he loses each one. The NCAA has the potential for 4 appeals if they lose. And there is no question, someone will appeal this when they lose because this is uncharted territory for sports lawsuits.

Unlike sports cases of the past (MLB baseball with free agency & collusion, NHL lockout marketing dollars), this isn't a sports lawsuit against a company. It's against an association or a membership in the NCAA. They're not a company like MLB or NFL. And in United States law, no case history has changed membership rules or membership application/eligibility requirements other than discrimination laws (which doesn't apply here).

If the court agrees with O'Bannon, this will be the first law in the country to alter a membership's eligibility rights based on money. If the court agrees with the NCAA, this will be the first ruling that states people give up their likeness rights on the basis of disclosure agreements to participate in said membership.

Either way, the ruling is going to set a legal precedent... and no legal precedent is set with just 1 court ruling. It's going to be appealed, and appealed again, and appealed again.

If the NCAA is not willing to settle with O'Bannon, this is going to be a long drawn out legal fight. They didn't mind settling with Keller, but this is the case they don't want to lose.

Now if the NCAA/major conferences change their membership laws outside of this case, that alters the legal proceedings, but look at how fast they move. How long have coaches asked for football playoff and it occurred 15 years late. How long did recruiting rules catch up to social media or food regulations. The NCAA moves sssssllllllloooooooowwwwwwww. So that's not a change that will happen immediately. Conferences & coaches want change and are threatening to secede, but not all schools are on board with the changes being presented. Big schools want change, small schools want protection.

[Cam Fan]

Quote: Originally Posted by JLoco11

Not quite sure what you're reading, but clearly it's from a sportswriter, and not a legal expert on how the proceedings of the court system actually works. The Plaintiff's (O'Bannon) case alone is scheduled for 3 weeks of witnesses... that doesn't include the defense questioning and rebuttal witnesses. It will most likely last 8 weeks, so if that qualifies as "mere" weeks, that's still a long initial trial. But that doesn't include the number of appeals either party would have, in particular O'Bannon if he loses. He filed in California, which means he could have the potential for 6 appeals in the state if he loses each one. The NCAA has the potential for 4 appeals if they lose. And there is no question, someone will appeal this when they lose because this is uncharted territory for sports lawsuits. Unlike sports cases of the past (MLB baseball with free agency & collusion, NHL lockout marketing dollars), this isn't a sports lawsuit against a company. It's against an association or a membership in the NCAA. They're not a company like MLB or NFL. And in United States law, no case history has changed membership rules or membership application/eligibility requirements other than discrimination laws (which doesn't apply here). If the court agrees with O'Bannon, this will be the first law in the country to alter a membership's eligibility rights based on money. If the court agrees with the NCAA, this will be the first ruling that states people give up their likeness rights on the basis of disclosure agreements to participate in said membership. Either way, the ruling is going to set a legal precedent... and no legal precedent is set with just 1 court ruling. It's going to be appealed, and appealed again, and appealed again. If the NCAA is not willing to settle with O'Bannon, this is going to be a long drawn out legal fight. They didn't mind settling with Keller, but this is the case they don't want to lose. Now if the NCAA/major conferences change their membership laws outside of this case, that alters the legal proceedings, but look at how fast they move. How long have coaches asked for football playoff and it occurred 15 years late. How long did recruiting rules catch up to social media or food regulations. The NCAA moves sssssllllllloooooooowwwwwwww. So that's not a change that will happen immediately. Conferences & coaches want change and are threatening to secede, but not all schools are on board with the changes being presented. Big schools want change, small schools want protection.

Actually ESPN's legal analyst predicts a "split" decision. O'Bannon will prevail with jerseys and video games but not broadcast rights. Who's to say how long the NCAA will make a decision. They've already granted a waiver to the current players in regards to settlements. I work for government which is able to grant waivers with just the submission of a letter. I don't think anyone on this site has the complete legal competence to speak on every issue. I'm just stating my own opinions (just like everyone else).