NCAA Football 11 News Post

New York Times on Sam Keller/EA Lawsuit: "It's about much more than video games"

02:47 PM - November 19, 2010 by RaychelSnr

The New York times reported earlier this week on the Sam Keller/EA Sports lawsuit:

Quote:


	"When Sam Keller, a former quarterback at Arizona State, sued the video game publisher Electronic Arts last year, he was seeking compensation for himself and other college athletes whose names were not used but whose images he contended were being illegally used by the company. But to the media conglomerates, athletes, actors, First Amendment advocates and others who have recently weighed in on the case, Keller�s lawsuit is about much more than video games. The outcome of a recent appeal filed by Electronic Arts, their lawyers say, could rewrite the rules that dictate how much ownership public figures have over their images � and the extent to which outside parties, including media and entertainment companies � can profit from them."

Basically, this is becoming a big lawsuit and it's not really about video games anymore -- at least to these additional parties with interests in the suit.

Quote:


	'�It�s one of the most important clashes in all of First Amendment law, and one of the more unsettled areas,� said David L. Hudson Jr., a scholar with the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. �I think it�s an area that is crying out for Supreme Court review in the right case.� '

We haven't even seen the case move forward too far and people are already talking Supreme Court? Well this would mean we won't see a resolution for quite some time, which is either good or bad news, depending on how you look at it.

Quote:


	"'The implications here are enormous,' said Rob Carey, Keller�s lawyer. 'I don�t think we anticipated such a drastic, far-reaching defense, and then when EA Sports did that, that�s when everybody started to cover their own turf.' Since Electronic Arts filed its opening brief in the appeal in August, more than three dozen parties have signed their names to briefs supporting each side. Those who support Electronic Arts claim that free speech rights permit the use of the athletes� images. But Keller and his supporters argue that the video games in question are not protected by the First Amendment because the company was using the likenesses of college athletes for purely commercial gain."

Basically for those who don't quite understand yet -- there are a lot of people very interested in the outcome of this lawsuit. It's becoming quite a big deal.

Quote:


	"But representatives of athletes, actors and other famous figures say they deserve to be compensated for use of personas they have worked hard to develop, and say Electronic Arts goes too far. If Electronic Arts were to prevail, �the real-life consequence would be that anybody making anything other than a television commercial or a print ad � what is very clearly commercial speech � would essentially have the right to use people�s names and likenesses in those projects without any consultation,� said Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, the general counsel of the Screen Actors Guild. "

The case hasn't progressed too far yet, but with everyone lining up on each side of the case -- we are going to see a very interesting set of arguments from both sides of the fence. I know gamers are interested in Electronic Arts winning this case, but there is indeed a much bigger picture at work here.

The argument from the Keller Camp that sports video games aren't the same as other games, and that prior court rulings that video games are protected speech, is an interesting one. If Keller wins, the NCAA and EA will have to fork over some major money and then EA will have to either start licensing real players for NCAA or EA will have to create completely generic rosters in every sense of the word.

However, should EA win, from what Crabtree-Ireland said above -- you would no longer have to license likenesses in sports games. So while you would still have to license teams, players would be fair game to be used without a license fee of any kind.

It would be good for sports gamers if EA won in that sense, but it would also be exceptionally bad if you are someone who might be used in a creative production of any kind. This is indeed a huge case and it should be the most interesting and groundreaking case for video games perhaps ever.

As always, we'll be on top of it!

Game: NCAA Football 11Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: iPhone / PS2 / PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 83 - View All

NCAA Football 11 Videos

Member Comments

# 41 Jr. @ 11/23/10 10:04 PM

I agree that college sports outside of football and basketball should not have pay-for-play value, because those sports do not make money for those schools or the NCAA. Those sports are largely able to exist because of the money made from football and basketball. I also agree that it is a small percentage of athletes that play college sports as stop before going pro as soon as possible. However, it doesn't do anyone any good (the schools or the athletes) to pretend that those athletes care about their education.

Going back to the original topic of the thread, these athletes deserve some kind of compensation for the money that they make the schools and the NCAA. Unfortunately, it's not likely or maybe even possible to determine how much money each athlete makes. That's why I say just let boosters give the athletes whatever they want to. The boosters would be able to determine the athlete's value on their own terms and the NCAA could keep their money without having to decide which athletes should be paid and which shouldn't. I also understand people wanting college athletics to remain "amateur" in nature, but it's far from that anymore and I don't see it going back anytime in the near future.

# 42 ODogg @ 11/23/10 10:55 PM

I agree they deserve compensation and they receive it in the form of housing and a massively expensive education. You aren't making the argument they deserve compensation, you're putting forth the argument they deserve more compensation and that's one that I disagree with. Sure there are issues now and there always will be but you don't throw out the entire system because of a few dishonest people who can't follow the rules.

# 43 Jr. @ 11/23/10 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ODogg


	I agree they deserve compensation and they receive it in the form of housing and a massively expensive education. You aren't making the argument they deserve compensation, you're putting forth the argument they deserve more compensation and that's one that I disagree with. Sure there are issues now and there always will be but you don't throw out the entire system because of a few dishonest people who can't follow the rules.

I'm making the point that they deserve compensation more comparable to the amount of money they generate (which is also why I'm not making the argument that the NCAA should pay all athletes). A free education and housing is great for many of the athletes that play college football and basketball, but I don't agree that Cam Newton, Mark Ingram, Andrew Luck, Justin Blackmon, AJ Green, or any of the other athletes that you see on commercials for games and that the fans pack stadiums to see should get the same compensation as the 3rd string QB.

I think they do need to throw out the system because these stories about rogue agents and extra benefits are getting ridiculous. You say it's a "few dishonest people," I'm of the mindset that it is way more than a few, but that the NCAA can't catch them all. If they just let boosters or agents give "extra benefits" to whomever they please, the NCAA wouldn't have to worry about catching anyone and could spend their time on other things (like how they can't crown a legit champion in their most profitable sport)

# 44 PioneerRaptor @ 11/24/10 01:34 PM

Just because they can't stop agents and boosters from paying players, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, nor does it mean we should allow it. The government also can't stop people from murdering, so should we also allow this?

Obviously not. College is all about the education. Only 2.4% of the 9,000 players, roughly about 315 players, will make it to the NFL. The other 97.6% will have to work normal jobs like the rest of us. However, thanks to athletic scholarships, they were able to obtain free College Degrees to help get ahead of the rest of us.

# 45 ODogg @ 11/24/10 01:44 PM

Baughn3 - the flaw in that argument is that it's a very, very tiny percentage of college football players who generate big money. For every Terrelle Pryor and Tim Tebow there are 20 no-names at smaller schools. You don't change the entire system to account for an anomaly. And the other flaw in that argument is that the big name players like Pryor and Tebow will go on to sign big paydays with the NFL so the argument of they're not getting compensated fails on that front as well.

I'm sure there are a lot of folks who agree with your argument but I don't think many of them realize exactly how it would ruin college football. If it became pay-to-play then the NFL would probably be on the hook for some of that money, if not all of it, because the schools would never subsidize it and use the "farm system for the NFL so the NFL should pay" defense. If it came to that the NFL would simply abolish the rule that athletes have to play in college and then you'd see the NFL become the NBA where big name players just come directly from high school and bypass college football. In effect implementing the plan you speak of would pretty much make college football a wasteland of those who aren't good enough to ever play in the NFL. Tuning in to see OSU-Michigan would be the equivalent of watching Yale vs. Princeton.

The players would be true student-athletes in a sense that the "real" athletes would be playing in the NFL and only those who are students first and have some athletic talent second would be left to play college football. How really interesting would it be to see a bunch of 1 star players vs. 1 star players in the big games like Auburn vs. Alabama or LSU vs. Florida? It wouldn't. College football would sink to become about as popular as college baseball currently is..

# 46 Jr. @ 11/24/10 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PioneerRaptor


	Just because they can't stop agents and boosters from paying players, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, nor does it mean we should allow it. The government also can't stop people from murdering, so should we also allow this? Obviously not. College is all about the education. Only 2.4% of the 9,000 players, roughly about 315 players, will make it to the NFL. The other 97.6% will have to work normal jobs like the rest of us. However, thanks to athletic scholarships, they were able to obtain free College Degrees to help get ahead of the rest of us.

You're taking the analogy of paying athletes to murder way too far. Who got hurt when AJ Green sold his jersey for $1000 to an agent? You're right college is about the education, but big-time college basketball and football are not. They're about making money. If they weren't we wouldn't see college football teams playing on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday nights when school is in session. And we wouldn't see preseason basketball tournaments in Puerto Rico and Alaska when school is in session.

I understand that everyone wants college football and basketball to be honorable and truly amateur, but it's not and hasn't been for many years now. What is so wrong about letting players earn some money on the side if they are talented enough? And I'm not talking about endorsements, I'm purely talking about boosters paying the players they feel deserve it.

If everyone truly wants an honorable system, then the NCAA as a whole needs to be blown up and restructured and players that don't really want to play college sports should be able to go pro whenever they want (I know that's not the NCAA's problem but still)

And why are they ahead of you if both you and the player have a degree?

# 47 Jr. @ 11/24/10 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ODogg


	Baughn3 - the flaw in that argument is that it's a very, very tiny percentage of college football players who generate big money. For every Terrelle Pryor and Tim Tebow there are 20 no-names at smaller schools. You don't change the entire system to account for an anomaly. And the other flaw in that argument is that the big name players like Pryor and Tebow will go on to sign big paydays with the NFL so the argument of they're not getting compensated fails on that front as well. I'm sure there are a lot of folks who agree with your argument but I don't think many of them realize exactly how it would ruin college football. If it became pay-to-play then the NFL would probably be on the hook for some of that money, if not all of it, because the schools would never subsidize it and use the "farm system for the NFL so the NFL should pay" defense. If it came to that the NFL would simply abolish the rule that athletes have to play in college and then you'd see the NFL become the NBA where big name players just come directly from high school and bypass college football. In effect implementing the plan you speak of would pretty much make college football a wasteland of those who aren't good enough to ever play in the NFL. Tuning in to see OSU-Michigan would be the equivalent of watching Yale vs. Princeton. The players would be true student-athletes in a sense that the "real" athletes would be playing in the NFL and only those who are students first and have some athletic talent second would be left to play college football. How really interesting would it be to see a bunch of 1 star players vs. 1 star players in the big games like Auburn vs. Alabama or LSU vs. Florida? It wouldn't. College football would sink to become about as popular as college baseball currently is..

I agree that it's a small percentage of athletes that generate lots of money and the majority of players in college football don't have much of an impact on the profit made by their school. But you can also assume that those players aren't the ones getting money from boosters, etc. either. This is why I'm not proposing the idea that the NCAA should pay athletes. It would be very difficult to figure out which athlete is making more profit and how much they should get in comparison to another player. If you allow the boosters, etc. to do whatever they want for any athlete they want, the process would take care of itself naturally. If Johnny Bigmoney at Alabama wants to pay Trent Richardson more than Mark Ingram, and not pay Preston Dial at all, that's his decision. The NCAA doesn't have to worry about what the boosters decide to do.

As for them getting big paydays, while that may be true for now, it's about to be changed when the new CBA is formed for the NFL. Rookie contracts are a big cog in that deal as the owners hate it and the majority of the veterans do as well, so the days of the #1 pick signing for $40+ million guaranteed will be over soon. While players that are drafted in the first 2 rounds do get paid well, what about players that are great, until they get injured in college? It almost happened to Willis McGahee (he lost upwards of 20 million dropping out of the top 10 to 22 after that horrific knee injury), but fortunately he was able to bounce back and get a solid 2nd contract. The dangers of football make it to where players need to make as much money as they are capable of as soon as they can because the likelihood of a major, career-ending injury is higher than probably any other sport.

I don't see how you made the jump to pay-for-play being the NFL's problem. Why would they have to front the money? They aren't fronting any money that agents, boosters, runners, etc. are paying to college athletes now, how would it be different if it became legal? Again, this is why I think the NCAA shouldn't pay athletes, but they should allow the boosters to.

Also, I know I brought up the idea of the superconferences disbanding from the NCAA and becoming a minor-league of sorts for the NFL, but OSU, Michigan, Auburn, Alabama, and every other major program would be a part of those superconferences, so you would still see elite athletes playing in those games.

# 48 UniversityofArizona @ 11/24/10 10:48 PM

what about the players who want to play football and earn their way into the nfl but have no interest in the education?

for many of these athletes the school side of the issue is a burden and not a benefit

for many of the students around them the educational side can suffer because coaches and professors are hooking them up with easier grades and coming up with bogus classes with little educational value

how many thousands upon thousands of athletes have never gotten a shot at
the sport they love because they didn't have the gpa or an interest in school?
lets be real. should they be punished for life when there are no other practical routes for athletes to take

btw if the education were really that valuable to the athletes or their coaches, athletic graduation rates at many of these schools including my own would not be so damn awful

the sport is all about money (just look at conference expansion), and what these kids can offer the university which is why they get scholarships in the first place because the benefits far outweigh the costs for both the schools and the ncaa

personally i believe if you want true amateurism in college sports there needs to be minor league systems for football and basketball and have universities stop giving out athletic scholarships so that these places can actually focus on giving more deserving students "that great education"

i feel if athletes in college paid their own way or earned academic scholarships then that would truly bring back the amateurism everyone seems to believe should exist in collegiate sports

finally, whats so bad about having a european soccer style league play where
the best 2 teams from the bottom league replace the worst 2 teams from the top league every year in a way that all of a sudden makes the clippers or lions of the world try a little bit harder.

# 49 BaseballCtchr @ 11/24/10 10:59 PM

You are saying pay just the players that make the school money....you just took a huge dump on Title IX. This would never fly just because of that. You could pay the whole football and men's basketball team and it would still violate Title IX.

I say men's because in most all cases the women's team is not making the school money.

# 50 PioneerRaptor @ 11/24/10 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baughn3


	And why are they ahead of you if both you and the player have a degree?

Oh, I don't know, probably the fact that to get a degree I would have to take out student loans and therefore be in debt before and after I even graduate, something these student athletes won't.

# 51 Jr. @ 11/25/10 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PioneerRaptor


	Oh, I don't know, probably the fact that to get a degree I would have to take out student loans and therefore be in debt before and after I even graduate, something these student athletes won't.

Oh I gotcha. I thought you were talking about job or career opportunities.

# 52 Jr. @ 11/25/10 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaseballCtchr


	You are saying pay just the players that make the school money....you just took a huge dump on Title IX. This would never fly just because of that. You could pay the whole football and men's basketball team and it would still violate Title IX. I say men's because in most all cases the women's team is not making the school money.

Title IX is a whole other discussion, but it deals with equal opportunity from the schools themselves. Because I am saying that boosters, etc. (who are not officially affiliated with the schools they donate to) be allowed to pay players, Title IX has nothing to do with it. If Title IX was involved with this, then USC would've had their athletic department dismantled for the Reggie Bush/OJ Mayo scandal for failing to follow Title IX because he was receiving extra benefits and there wasn't a woman athlete being compensated equally

# 53 PioneerRaptor @ 11/25/10 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baughn3


	Oh I gotcha. I thought you were talking about job or career opportunities.

In that case you'd be correct. Neither would have the advantage. They're advantage lies in the fact that they are able to get a degree without debt.

# 54 CuseGirl @ 11/25/10 09:24 PM

How are they using "player likenesses" when the equipment, jerseys, the number itself doesn't belong to the player? A school can dress any pair of players, on offense and defense respectively, with the same number.

# 55 CuseGirl @ 11/25/10 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baughn3


	I don't think it's ever going to go back to that unless the superconferences that are coming separate themselves from the NCAA and start their own minor league-type system for the NFL. There's no way to stop boosters, agents, and their runners from paying athletes that are willing to take the money, so why not make it legal?

I dont kno why they haven't started a minor-league yet for the NFL. Then we can stop worrying about athletes getting benefits on top of getting free education.

That's the real issue here. College football and basketball (as opposed to baseball) forcefully put non-scholarly people together in a forum with those who want to educate themselves. And the bottomline is, both groups have a sense of entitlement and want the rules in their favor. Athletes feel entitled because they're physically gifted and they've been put on a pedestal all their life since age 12. The scholarly types are upset because they've been busting their butt in the classroom all their life, getting no pats on the back for it and now have to pay between 50 and 200 grand to educate themselves further and that's if they want a half-decent job.

Those two groups have no business being together and they need to be separated.

# 56 Jr. @ 11/26/10 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuseGirl


	The scholarly types are upset because they've been busting their butt in the classroom all their life, getting no pats on the back for it and now have to pay between 50 and 200 grand to educate themselves further and that's if they want a half-decent job. Those two groups have no business being together and they need to be separated.

There are academic scholarships as well. Not as many as athletic, but they are out there.

# 57 Jr. @ 11/26/10 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostle


	I agree 100 percent, ODogg. I am tired of the sense of entitlement that exists EVERYWHERE in our country. These kids sign letters of intent, they are not stupid, they know that they will not be paid monetarily, they WILL receive free housing and a free education in exchange for their talents on the playing field to further the school's program both performance-wise and possibly financially. If a kid does not like it, or feels that it is unfair, then train for three years without going to college and enter the NFL Draft. Most of them are adults when they sign their letter of intent, so if they don't like the terms (not being monetarily compensated) then they need to be men and not sign if that's a problem. There is a lack of accountability in play here when it comes to this topic. THEY KNOW THE TERMS. I am speaking strictly with student-athletes in relation to their playing/compensation, not whether or not they get paid for being in a video game.

It sounds like you're taking the stance that athletes who play big time college football and basketball expect to get "extra benefits." If I'm wrong about that feel free to correct me.

While that may be the case with some (like maybe the Tyrelle Pryor/Tim Tebow level athletes mentioned earlier), I doubt that the majority of college football and basketball players believe that. However, why should they have to turn away something that someone wants to give them because of their abilities? This is the part that bugs me.. if a student was given $5,000 for a research project they completed, they would never turn it away. But an athlete can't receive a free meal from someone that wants to give it to them.

I think my part in this discussion is about through (unless someone makes a point that sparks my interest). I understand everyone's reasons as to why college athletes shouldn't be paid, I just disagree with them

« Previous 1 23Next »

More Links

New York Times on Sam Keller/EA Lawsuit: "It's about much more than video games"