NCAA Football 14 News Post

NCAA Will Not Renew EA Sports Contract, NCAA Football Series is Dead in Name Only

02:24 PM - July 17, 2013 by FloorGeneral

The NCAA has decided today, unilaterally it appears, to not renew their license with EA Sports for the NCAA Football video game beginning next year.

In the statement, the NCAA said, "The NCAA has made the decision not to enter a new contract for the license of its name and logo for the EA Sports NCAA Football video game. The current contract expires in June 2014, but our timing is based on the need to provide EA notice for future planning. As a result, the NCAA Football 2014 video game will be the last to include the NCAA�s name and logo. We are confident in our legal position regarding the use of our trademarks in video games. But given the current business climate and costs of litigation, we determined participating in this game is not in the best interests of the NCAA."

EA should still be able to work out individual school, conference, awards, etc. licenses from the CLC -- which should mean the series should be able to live on. At the end of the day, this is the NCAA taking it's name and logo off of the game, but nothing more it appears. So while the series can't be called "NCAA Football" anymore, perhaps with the ESPN license the series can be called "EA Sports College Gameday 15" next season.

The only way this ends the NCAA Football series altogether is if one of two further scenarios happen: 1)If EA Sports decides it is done with the series altogether, which is doubtful given it's a top seller in the US. 2)If the CLC won't play ball with EA Sports, and thus EA has to negotiate licenses individually from member institutions

It is possible EA Sports will not continue development of the game after this year because of either reason, or because of fears of financial fallout from the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit. However, there is no guarantee EA will face huge financial problems from the O'Bannon lawsuit, and in a sense -- the threat of the O'Bannon lawsuit ending the series is the same today as it was yesterday.

I EA wants to they can continue the game with purely cosmetic changes and greater creative freedom without the NCAA hovering above the game. And let's face it, the less the NCAA is involved in anything, the better it will be.

So in a sense, the only thing different today versus yesterday with regards to the NCAA Football series is that it is no longer the NCAA Football series going forward. Everything thing else remains the same.

UPDATE: Brett McMurphy of ESPN is reporting ESPN has been told EA Sports will still have a college football video game beyond 2014, next year's game will be called College Football 15.

UPDATE #2: According to ESPN's Sports Business reporter Darren Rovell the CLC, which handles school, bowl, awards, etc. licensing, says it plans to work with EA in the future despite the NCAA dropping out.

UPDATE #3: EA Sports Executive Vice President Andrew Wilson speaks. In a statement, Wilson said, "EA SPORTS will continue to develop and publish college football games, but we will no longer include the NCAA names and marks. Our relationship with the Collegiate Licensing Company is strong and we are already working on a new game for next generation consoles which will launch next year and feature the college teams, leagues and all the innovation fans expect from EA SPORTS.

We took big creative strides with this year's college game and you�ll see much more in the future. We love college football and look forward to making more games for our fans."

Game: NCAA Football 14Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 54 - View All

NCAA Football 14 Videos

Member Comments

# 661 seasprite @ 07/18/13 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killrnut


	. Another problem is that once you start paying the Football, or Basketball players, you have to pay EVERYONE, all the way down to Women's swimming and other sports no one cares about. I want to hear that conversation where the soccer team finds out they aren't being paid but the football team is. Or at Iowa where the wrestling team that's been national champs 4 times since 2000 isn't being paid but other sports are. and so on....

Agree with many points that you made in your post, but these points I quoted are a bit off IMO. The reason that I think it is off is that I believe atheletes could be paid on a basis of a scale dependant on what their sport brings in as far as revenue. College wrestling, soccer, golf, or other collegiate sports dont bring in a fraction of what football brings in. When is the last time 100,000 paying customers showed up for a college soccer game? Thats just my different angle at looking at it. At the very least, players should be paid some off of their uniform sales IMO.

# 662 seasprite @ 07/18/13 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quint75


	SMH. There is no license to pick up. The NCAA did not decide to forego renewing the license just to sign a new one with someone else. They want to get out of gaming (at least for now) because of possible liability in lawsuits like the one now pending.

Will be interesting to see how the CLC handles a license with EA, whether that be exclusive or not.

# 663 inkcil @ 07/18/13 04:10 PM

Bah! University Greedy-Greed Nets the following annually:

A.) $50 million off its football program
B.) $10 million off its men's basketball program
C.) $100,00 off its men's tennis program

Now, "who in the world" would still be confused as to who should get more than who?

Calculations 100 times more complicated are made in offices, institutions and markets ev'hour by people on their lunch break with their eyes closed. And *gasp* some of those people even work in Division One front offices.

On top of that, the "value" of an education is HIGHLY subjective and is valueless without a job which is valueless without money, which is used to get the things people need like food and water and shelter and clothes and videogames. And let's face it, college diploma don't = job no mo. This ain't the 1970's.

# 664 bluengold34_OS @ 07/18/13 04:16 PM

Why do I feel like if you start paying players now, then former players will file lawsuits wanting restitution

# 665 gogators @ 07/18/13 04:26 PM

If schools had to start paying athletes, you would see MANY universities drop athletics. There are about only 50 or schools that could afford to do it.

# 666 inkcil @ 07/18/13 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluengold34_OS


	Why do I feel like if you start paying players now, then former players will file lawsuits wanting restitution

Ha ha I agree they would try. Even Booger from Revenge of the Nerds would suit up to represent Lamda Lamda Lamda (I think the football team was all Lamda at the end of Part 1).

My wife had a full ride, D-1 for track, and she had to sign a contract which basically said this is what you agreed to get, this what the school gets to do to you and this is what we can't do. However, without ever seeing one of those contracts firsthand myself, I'm guessing maybe the language indemnifies the school against further claims for compensation in the context of a student's athletic obligations.

# 667 bluengold34_OS @ 07/18/13 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inkcil


	Ha ha I agree they would try. Even Booger from Revenge of the Nerds would suit up to represent Lamda Lamda Lamda (I think the football team was all Lamda at the end of Part 1). My wife had a full ride, D-1 for track, and she had to sign a contract which basically said this is what you agreed to get, this what the school gets to do to you and this is what we can't do. However, without ever seeing one of those contracts firsthand myself, I'm guessing maybe the language indemnifies the school against further claims for compensation in the context of a student's athletic obligations.

Well it's been 15 years since I signed an LOI for baseball, but you pretty much hit the nail on the head. For those who think all you get is an education, are sorely mistaken. You get treated like a king for 4 years and whether others will admit it, you get "special consideration" from the school themselves....and much much more.

# 668 Quint75 @ 07/18/13 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seasprite


	Will be interesting to see how the CLC handles a license with EA, whether that be exclusive or not.

Probably won't be exclusive but will be expensive enough to keep anyone else from trying. EA says the NCAA series is profitable but hardly a cash cow. Not sure it would be worth anyone else's time to pay for the license and try to make a profit off of it. Guess we'll have to see but I would doubt it.

# 669 BenGerman @ 07/18/13 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inkcil


	Bah! University Greedy-Greed Nets the following annually: A.) $50 million off its football program B.) $10 million off its men's basketball program C.) $100,00 off its men's tennis program Now, "who in the world" would still be confused as to who should get more than who? Calculations 100 times more complicated are made in offices, institutions and markets ev'hour by people on their lunch break with their eyes closed. And gasp some of those people even work in Division One front offices. On top of that, the "value" of an education is HIGHLY subjective and is valueless without a job which is valueless without money, which is used to get the things people need like food and water and shelter and clothes and videogames. And let's face it, college diploma don't = job no mo. This ain't the 1970's.

My whole argument is that it shouldn't be about the business of the whole thing. If athletic programs want to separate themselves and be part of a business, that's something else. But for now, ALL student athletes - NOT just football players or basketball players - have to work really hard all year long. Of course some sports make more than others, but each and every student athlete is dedicating a lot of time to their university, and is getting screwed because of it.

Like I said, money should come in the form of a stipend. I think it's inevitable before we see something like that.

Let me just try to quell both sides of the argument here:

1) IF you are proposing players should be paid for their likeness, you are accepting the fact that college sports (football and basketball in particular) will become a business for both the athletic programs AND the players themselves. Soon, players would be choosing their schools based on a business decision, rather than where they might feel its best to get an education.

For example, a middling football recruit is trying to decide between Vanderbilt (a prestigious academic university) and LSU (which obviously doesn't have quite the academic standards that Vandy does). While this player knows he could get a better education at Vanderbilt, the promise of making more money off of his likeness is too much of a draw. At that point, it really becomes about which team can MARKET you better, and less about being a student athlete.

2) If you are proposing athletes not be paid at all, there is certainly an argument to be made. No one wants to open a can of worms where student athletes are being paid a ton of money and universities are losing out on money. The problem is, these student athletes are working their tails off. Most student athletes are on a 50% or less scholarship, so while some may think everything is being paid for, it really isn't for most students. On top of that, even those that do have full rides, are left not having any extra spending money.

So that means no movies with the friends, no dinners, no video games, etc. They don't have time for a job on top of school and the sport, so it's really impossible to earn anything extra.

Fortunately, we could move to a stipend where these athletes are paid on a $50 a week allowance, and no one has to suffer from it. Schools could choose between upping tuition costs (at about $16 dollars a year, for standard sized school. Less than that for standard sized D1 schools), OR their athletic department could pay for it.

I say all of this as someone who is currently on an academic scholarship. I've had time for a job, time for an internship, and time to spend with friends. I get the same advantages a student athlete does, when they are working four-six more hours in a day than I am for 0 money. Honestly, I think that sucks.

Anyway, I know all of this stuff is off-topic, so that's the last I'll say about it. It's certainly a riveting topic!

# 670 inkcil @ 07/18/13 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenGerman


	I say all of this as someone who is currently on an academic scholarship. I've had time for a job, time for an internship, and time to spend with friends. I get the same advantages a student athlete does, when they are working four-six more hours in a day than I am for 0 money. Honestly, I think that sucks. Anyway, I know all of this stuff is off-topic, so that's the last I'll say about it. It's certainly a riveting topic!

Excellent summary, especially this last paragraph. A lot of us here are in high school/college or (if not in school) just in early 20's/late teens. But for those of us (like me) who've finished college and have worked 10 years or more and can look back at how things play out, we realize that anyone without connections who wants to work for more than $15 dollars/hour after graduation has to put in 1-2 years full time interning while a junior and senior in college. And what big time program D-1 athlete has time for that? Because without that JOB experience the DAY you graduate, your education is meaningless. You'll be "settling" for a job at Home Depot/UPS, playing catch-up to the guy who skipped college and now has 4 years experience there. And he'll get that manager/supervisor job before you do. Trust me!

Now, with your fancy "Business Administration" degree you see you should have been interning in the "Home Depot/UPS Corporate Office summer internship program for Future Leaders" instead of sweating your time away on a hot practice field playing backup Fullback.

# 671 thinkjoey @ 07/18/13 05:34 PM

Wow that was a lot of reading to catch up

Not sure why we are talking about the lawsuits...shouldn't that be in it's own thread?

Anywho..The contract with NCAA is just for NCAA schools, stadiums and teams in upcoming games as well as advertisements. - Which I know has been discussed, but people keep bringing it up each and every page

So people can stop thinking it will affect the current settings on suspensions/tearing the post down/etc

All of that will be handled by the CLC (Which we should all know now is willing to keep doing business with EA despite NCAA's decision) - aholbert32 has made this clear countless times over

I understand that is a lot of reading to do in order to catch up...but coming in here and stating something that was answered in X page is like walking in on a few people having a discussion and yelling out your opinion on the first thing you hear...Does not work out then...it will not work out here

**Want to know if your question was answered? There is a thread search function so search key words**

# 672 killrnut @ 07/18/13 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inkcil


	Bah! University Greedy-Greed Nets the following annually: A.) $50 million off its football program B.) $10 million off its men's basketball program C.) $100,00 off its men's tennis program Now, "who in the world" would still be confused as to who should get more than who?

In theory, your stance seems to make sense. But in reality, its a Title-IX lawsuit waiting to happen, as I guarantee you the men will always be making more than the women. And we're talking about Universities here, which are supposed to be about equal opportunity for all, regardless or gender, race, background, etc.

# 673 killrnut @ 07/18/13 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenGerman


	Like I said, all student athletes should be given a stipend (think allowance), because they aren't able to get a job and have extra cash to spend. What if they want to go out to dinner with friends? It's not like the university pays for that. Another thing, if football athletes are getting paid, why shouldn't other student athletes be paid? That's ridiculous. They all put in similar work loads for their university.

First of all, I am not entirely against the idea of them getting a small stipend. Dont some of them already get one? I've heard of football players buying stuff with their scholarship checks.

Second, I never said other student athletes shouldn't be paid. The point of my argument was if and when they do get paid, how do you balance it fairly.

# 674 TDenverFan @ 07/18/13 05:51 PM

I think a stipend of maybe 40 bucks a week for all athletics would be OK. Singly because being a D1 athlete events you from working a job. Tuition would have to increase between 12-40 dollars for ever student, depending on the ratio of athletes to non athletes.

Paying athletes a large salary I don't agree with, since most sports (even football) lose their schools money. 22 D1 football teams made a profit in 2010. 200ish lost money. So, paying them a salary doesn't make sense to me.

# 675 bigbob @ 07/18/13 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkjoey


	Wow that was a lot of reading to catch up Not sure why we are talking about the lawsuits...shouldn't that be in it's own thread? Anywho..The contract with NCAA is just for NCAA schools, stadiums and teams in upcoming games as well as advertisements. - Which I know has been discussed, but people keep bringing it up each and every page So people can stop thinking it will affect the current settings on suspensions/tearing the post down/etc All of that will be handled by the CLC (Which we should all know now is willing to keep doing business with EA despite NCAA's decision) - aholbert32 has made this clear countless times over I understand that is a lot of reading to do in order to catch up...but coming in here and stating something that was answered in X page is like walking in on a few people having a discussion and yelling out your opinion on the first thing you hear...Does not work out then...it will not work out here Want to know if your question was answered? There is a thread search function so search key words

NO. IT. IS. NOT.

The contract with the NCAA has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

ZIP.

NADDA.

ZILCH.

To do with schools, stadiums, teams, advertisements.. or anything else that has to do with the schools themselves.

# 676 thinkjoey @ 07/18/13 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbob


	NO. IT. IS. NOT. The contract with the NCAA has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. ZIP. NADDA. ZILCH. To do with schools, stadiums, teams, advertisements.. or anything else that has to do with the schools themselves.

"The College Licensing Co. has signed a six-year exclusive agreement with the publisher, making EA the only company who can use NCAA schools, stadiums and teams in upcoming games. "

Errrr....I mixed up there. CLC

Blah. my fault on this one.

# 677 Quint75 @ 07/18/13 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkjoey


	"The College Licensing Co. has signed a six-year exclusive agreement with the publisher, making EA the only company who can use NCAA schools, stadiums and teams in upcoming games. " Errrr....I mixed up there. CLC Blah. my fault on this one.

Is this a new deal or are quoting the old agreement?

# 678 bigbob @ 07/18/13 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkjoey


	"The College Licensing Co. has signed a six-year exclusive agreement with the publisher, making EA the only company who can use NCAA schools, stadiums and teams in upcoming games. " Errrr....I mixed up there. CLC Blah. my fault on this one.

Sorry for being a dick than.

# 679 thinkjoey @ 07/18/13 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quint75


	Is this a new deal or are quoting the old agreement?

Old agreement

# 680 thinkjoey @ 07/18/13 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbob


	Sorry for being a dick than.

Ha I deserved it...I was making a point because of others making the wrong point

Then I did not pay attention to what I was saying and made a point for the wrong point.

Blah...all cleared up now. Thanks mate

« Previous 1 2…27 28 29 30 31 32 333435 Next »

More Links

NCAA Will Not Renew EA Sports Contract, NCAA Football Series is Dead in Name Only