NCAA Football 12 News Post

Judge Nixes NCAA Players Antitrust Claims -- Case Not Over...Yet

01:02 PM - May 4, 2011 by RaychelSnr

You may remember the NCAA players lawsuit which claimed anti-trust violations occurred by EA and the NCAA in using college players likenesses right? Yesterday, the NCAA players lawsuit's anti-trust claims against EA and the NCAA were shot down by Judge Claudia Wilken.

Quote:


	"A California federal judge on Monday nixed putative class antitrust claims that Electronic Arts Inc. plotted with the NCAA and its licensing firm to profit improperly off college athletes' likenesses. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken dismissed claims that the video game company, along with the NCAA and The Collegiate Licensing Co., conspired to avoid paying student basketball and football players for the use and sale of their likenesses in popular NCAA-themed video games. However, the judge granted the players two weeks to amend their antitrust allegations."

This isn't a complete dismissal of the lawsuit, and I think that needs to be stressed. But it is a serious blow against Keller and Co's case for sure. We'll keep on top of this case as we have since the beginning!

Game: NCAA Football 12Reader Score: 7/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 104 - View All

NCAA Football 12 Videos

Member Comments

# 41 UniversityofArizona @ 05/04/11 10:03 PM

Let them be professional athletes I could care less, and while playing for a university may be a right and a privilege to you where else can somebody with the talent to play actually play? Oh yea...the NCAA controls the whole industry up until you make it or don't make it to the NFL, and if you fall afoul of the NCAA you are pretty much screwed. By the way just about everything else seems professional to me from the ridiculous 100,000 person stadiums to the millionaire coaches and 50 million dollar plus athletic budgets and gaudy bowl championships. By the way I don't understand this obsession with amateurism when most people can become working professionals between the ages of 16-18 years of age.

Goodness I think Europe got it right with their league system for soccer, and that lets their universities teach people who want to learn rather than shoving unwanted educations down the throats of athletes that may not want them.

# 42 canes21 @ 05/04/11 10:07 PM

If you have the talent to play Div I football, but aren't smart enough to make it into a university, then join the Canadian league, UFL, or Arena league. Make a big enough impact there and you will get you shot at the NFL.

And if you aren't smart enough to make it to one of these colleges in the first place, then I doubt many NFL teams will be interested anyways.

# 43 UniversityofArizona @ 05/04/11 10:18 PM

Requiring people to move to new countries to take part in a viable alternative is not really an alternative at all. The UFL will also be bankrupt in the next year or two anyways because they decided it is a great idea to play in the fall. Also, I don't see how football smarts, or practice and time spent learning the ins and outs of football are directly proportional to how well you do in classes that you may have less interest in such as calculus or even algebra for that matter nor do I feel it is necessarily a completely accurate representation of how smart an individual is. If someone is brilliant and talented on the football field, but can't motivate themselves enough to understand chemistry why would an NFL coach look down on them? What relevance does your ability to learn chemistry have on your ability to play football.

Arguing that people are simply too stupid to make it into college is a statement I flat out disagree with since I feel any individual with the proper motivation, quality instruction, and good study environment can make it to at the very least one of the bottom tier academic institutions.

The Arena Football League is a nice alternative, but is a different kind of football entirely and carries small rosters. It would need to be significantly expanded for me to consider it to be a viable alternative for players straight out of high school.

# 44 canes21 @ 05/04/11 10:32 PM

I am not disagreeing with you about needing D-Leagues, Rookie Leagues, etc., but I am going to completely disagree with you on the idea of playing for a university, but not attending there. And I feel a player should qualify academically if they want to play football on the next level(DIV I).

Also, I am not saying a coach is not going to take an athlete who just isn't motivated in the classroom, but if a player tries and still can't get that 18 on the ACT, then chances are the NFL schemes, and even the college schemes, are going to be too difficult for them to understand.

# 45 UniversityofArizona @ 05/04/11 10:53 PM

The problem right now though is that the NCAA is the functioning development league and the only real option for high school players. Thus, just because you went to a garbage high school or you were not motivated enough and failed to pass the ACT you will no longer even have the opportunity to try and learn college or NFL schemes even if you have shown a wonderful history of learning them at the high school level up until that point. Judging 17 and 18 year olds who may have plenty of football talent with tests that aren't even football related is a lame way of going about things. If I were to use your chemistry scores as a means of judging your ability to paint what would that make me? That is the problem with the NCAA. They are the development league, but they restrict individuals ability to participate based on academic side requirements. This is why I feel like the NCAA is such a malicious trust when it comes to hundreds of athletes who get locked out of the system who otherwise would be given a shot if a real development league were in place. While it is a bad analogy I feel restricting otherwise talented and qualified athletes from taking part at the college level because of test scores is no different than giving citizens voting tests to determine if they are smart enough to vote and exercise their rights as a citizen. Alright, thanks for the wonderful discussion during the boring months in-between football seasons that I wish the UFL played during! I have to head out but will be back later if you want to keep debating

Throw in the last word and take care friend!

# 46 canes21 @ 05/04/11 10:57 PM

So...

We both agree that there should be a developmental league for players who don't want to attend college.

We disagree on having to meet academic standards to play at the D1 level.

Can we leave it at that and

# 47 agte @ 05/04/11 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SECElite3


	It is my understanding from reading posts of ex-NCAA players, they sign an agreement which protects the NCAA from lawsuits like this.

I haven't read this whole thing, but even when I signed my letter of intent to run track at a local NAIA school, there was a part in the letter that said the school could use my likeness (photos, videos, billboards, anything, etc.) for anything they wanted, or something along those lines....

That's part of why you should always read everything you sign

# 48 UniversityofArizona @ 05/04/11 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canes21


	So... We both agree that there should be a developmental league for players who don't want to attend college. We disagree on having to meet academic standards to play at the D1 level. Can we leave it at that and ?

Sounds good to me.

I was only arguing in favor of not having to meet academic standards in the long term continued absence of a developmental league. I don't think any college fan wants to see a 40 year old washed up NFL qb playing against your favorite school who only has an 18 year old who chooses to spend time in class towards a degree.

And I do realize you would still disagree with me on my point because we do need to keep what makes college sports special which is amateur 18-20 somethingish year old college students playing against each other regardless of a developmental league being in place.

# 49 Pielet @ 05/05/11 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agte


	I haven't read this whole thing, but even when I signed my letter of intent to run track at a local NAIA school, there was a part in the letter that said the school could use my likeness (photos, videos, billboards, anything, etc.) for anything they wanted, or something along those lines.... That's part of why you should always read everything you sign

Forcing someone to sign something in order to participate, how is that a legal "offer and acceptance" for a contract? More like coercion.

The language the NCAA uses for the likeness waiver is utterly ridiculous. It states they can use their likeness in "perpetuity in this or any other universe".

The people saying the players are getting paid via a scholarship should wake up. These schools could give two craps if these kids goto school or graduate. Their direct supervisors, the coaching staffs, frankly care more about saving their own jobs than guiding the academic careers of their players. A simple look at graduation rates proves this. In addition a scholarship after the first year can be pulled at will to maintain an 85 man roster. Simple use and abuse.

Good discussion on topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e8I_...feature=relmfu

# 50 bkrich83 @ 05/05/11 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aholbert32


	Stop trying to complicate the issue. Its simple. College athletes are given a scholarship in exchange for them playing football....thats it. They dont agree to sign over their likeness rights.

Are you sure? It seems back in the day, you did sign a piece of paper that specifically did give away your likeness rights or basically it gave the school and the NCAA the rights to market themselves based on your likeness. Or something to that affect. (Gimme a break it was almost 20 yeas ago) . It came right after the speech from the FBI guy about the dangers of associating with gamblers on the first day of practice.

Maybe they don't do that anymore or maybe the concussions finally caught up to me.

# 51 bkrich83 @ 05/05/11 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerseySuave4


	no i believe they do it and you basically are signing your rights over for life.

Considering no one wanted to use my likeness and no one would ever want to, I was ok with that.

# 52 GoToledo @ 05/05/11 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MBFranchise


	Actually, yes they do. Heck, I was a DIII Cross Country runner and I signed over my likeness.

I believe this is correct. Signing over your likeness IS part of the deal, at least according to some friends who played football at Toledo when I was there.

# 53 saunders45 @ 05/05/11 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aholbert32


	Thats a bad comparison. One, giving players a small percentage of the tv rights fees would not cause TV networks to start charging for all televised sports games. The goal of a TV network is to get as many people to watch its programming as possible. Making college football completely pay per view would be counter to that. Two, a decent comparison to the video game dispute is apparel like jerseys and t-shirts. A video game is a product. EA and the NCAA are selling that product partially bu using the likeness of college players. Just like the NCAA is doing the same thing with most of the jerseys it sells.

What do you think TV networks do? They market games using actual player images (not generic digital models) in advertising the games. They also broadcast real footage of the players. They pay the schools & conference boatloads of money to broadcast games. Why? To sell billions and billions in advertising.

If they players get a chunk of that pie, you're insanely naive if you think ABC/ESPN/FSN are going to absorb that cost. It will get passed onto the cable providers and advertisers. Now that the Cable providers and advertisers/manufacturers are having to pay more money, who's going to absorb this increased cost? The consumers. Us.

# 54 Kaiser Wilhelm @ 05/05/11 06:58 PM

I'm just going to put my imput on this. As a high school senior, if a college was giving me a four year "free" ride, I would not be complaining.

College is not cheap and these players have the ability to go to class and get a degree. They chose to sign their letter of intent for the scholarship. Nobody forced them to do so. College loans are available and if you did well in high school getting acceptance to a decent college should not be that hard.

Forgive me if I do not have sypathy because these players are being "taken advantage of."

# 55 agte @ 05/05/11 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pielet


	Forcing someone to sign something in order to participate, how is that a legal "offer and acceptance" for a contract? More like coercion. The language the NCAA uses for the likeness waiver is utterly ridiculous. It states they can use their likeness in "perpetuity in this or any other universe". The people saying the players are getting paid via a scholarship should wake up. These schools could give two craps if these kids goto school or graduate. Their direct supervisors, the coaching staffs, frankly care more about saving their own jobs than guiding the academic careers of their players. A simple look at graduation rates proves this. In addition a scholarship after the first year can be pulled at will to maintain an 85 man roster. Simple use and abuse.

Playing is a privilege not a right, and they tell you up front what the deal is. If you don't like it, you don't have to sign on the line.

that's just my 2 cents on the matter

# 56 Dbrentonbuck @ 05/06/11 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agte


	Playing is a privilege not a right, and they tell you up front what the deal is. If you don't like it, you don't have to sign on the line. that's just my 2 cents on the matter

Exactly, like I said before, these guys knew way before they accepted a scholarship that there is an NCAA football game put out every year. I would venture to guess most of them played it. I am a UC Bearcats season ticket holder and interact with most team members on twitter and they ALL play this game. The only way they would have any kind of case or moral high ground would be to decline the scholarship and then sue the NCAA based on unfair practices. If you know this and you accept the scholarship, play 4 years and blow your chance at the NFL; don't come crying in court. It is weak.

# 57 ODogg @ 05/06/11 05:03 AM

I hate to say I told you so but....ah..no actually I love saying I told you so

# 58 Cryolemon @ 05/06/11 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostle


	Do some people just love to debate? Love to be different? What's the deal? For the ones siding with the Sam Keller's of the world, are you going to be satisfied with no college football game, or a game that is comprised of completely random players? Just wondering what the line of thinking is here.

I don't think people would mind a completely random game too much as long as it could be edited.

# 59 PaperBoyx703 @ 05/06/11 11:19 AM

Im a little curious, if a game title has an exclusive license over the NCAAF wouldnt it mean they have rights over everything under it like colleges under them its teams and under the teams the players?

Im a little lost if likeness was a big issue, how could there be cover athletes, despite not seeing the names we all know who they are and we see their face?

But with this signing over likeness thing, wouldnt it be possible to get those records of the past athletes(including Sam Keller)that are siding with Keller and see if they obliged by signing or if not?

In case you havent noticed by these q's i may either be lost or showing I dont have a side in the matter really.

# 60 kevj349 @ 05/07/11 06:31 PM

You really don't think that the player has the likeness of the real life person? You have to be blind not to think it represents them. When I was playing NCAA after an OSU game my girlfriend walked in, who mind you knows nothing about football, and mentioned how she didn't like Pryor and Boom, who I was playing with. The fact is you don't recognize a player by his stats and face. When they are playing on Saturday do you see their faces? No you see the number, position, and team. Not arguing either way, but really? You don't see the likeness?

« Previous 1 234 Next »

More Links

Judge Nixes NCAA Players Antitrust Claims -- Case Not Over...Yet