good article, but you're clearly missing the point about this lawsuit. Dont think like a disgruntled sports gamer, look up the laws involved and how it could be applicable outside of sports gaming, then it will make sense. The Gamer is the loser here, but in the long run the law is there to benefit us.

I agree with Tril...this is beyond gamers, and consumerism. I applaude them for stepping up against big businesses and not being treated as property.

I understand the idea behind the player's likeness. I completely understand it in professional sports. I don't agree with it in college athletics.

A. These games were out when they signed their scholarships. They were not forced to play college football. And, none of these players said anything at the time, they wait until several years later. Why?

I'm sure the argument would be that they couldn't do it while they were in college because of the possible repercussions. Aren't there whistle blower laws? Those are there to protect them, right?

B. The guys had NO likeness before they went to college, certainly not one anyone would have paid for. The NCAA, CLC, EA, etc all helped to make them recognizable.

C. They were paid. With a roughly $100,000 scholarship.

D. They aren't suing ESPN or CBS or FOX or any number of media outlets that use their name, face, footage, etc to hype games that they make millions off of. Why just EA?

My take is that O'Bannon and Keller either needed something to fight for or needed cash and were convinced this would be the way to go. But what's the outcome going to be? The players only get a couple hundred bucks. The fans lose a game. The game loses potential fans. The players lose recognition...

Who really wins?

The UFC has verbage in every contract that their fighters sign that says the UFC owns their likeness. You don't have to agree to it, you just can't fight in the UFC otherwise. College football should be the same. You sign that scholarship, your likeness is the property of the university until you graduate and everything related to your likeness and playing days remains owned by the university.

College kids aren't going to get paid. They're not going to turn into professional college athletes. They might get a few hundred bucks, maybe even a couple thousand, but at what cost? More disparity between the haves and have nots? Not every school can afford that.

Its a cut your nose off to spite your face lawsuit. No matter what college football ultimately elects to do, this is a now win prospect. Either they truly win (which I do not believe will happen) and we have the big programs legitimately buying players or the players get a few hundred bucks to live off of. To me, none of those options or anything in between would be worth being hated by millions of college fans and tarnishing the sport.

Ya, the law is the law, but there's a reason you don't usually get pulled over for going 5 MPH over the speed limit or arrested for small amounts of marijuana. Sometimes the end doesn't justify the means.

It would seem to me like the only athletes in any position to sue would be those who were shown on the cover or in the advertising campaigns. You can't sue EA for using your jersey number, and it's not like the players on the games ever bear any real resemblance to the athletes they are meant to portray. I never really understood why EA felt the need to put actual players on the cover of college games anyway. Seems like a very avoidable can of worms. I'm sure I'm botching some of the details of this suit, as I haven't really done my homework on the issue, but I was shocked to see that so many players are involved.

They actually paid to use the "likeness" of the cover athletes. That's why they were all former collegiates. The lawsuit alleged the players in game bared the exact (or resembled enough) of real players.