PDA

View Full Version : Major lawsuit filed against NCAA



JasonEvans
07-21-2009, 05:42 PM
This could be (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news;_ylt=AiPSKuqU0MUDs0QebN308lE5nYcB?slug=dw-ncaasuit072109) very significant.


Fourteen years after Ed O’Bannon left college, the NCAA, which profited handsomely off him as a student-athlete, was still profiting handsomely off him as a former student-athlete. They’d made a deal with EA Sports to feature th3 1995 UCLA national champions. There were also O’Bannon jerseys, commemorative DVDs and full game footage still for sale.

Tuesday in federal court in San Francisco, O’Bannon became the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit on behalf of all current and former Division I-A football and men’s basketball athletes against the NCAA. He’s represented by two of the nation’s most high-powered law firms – including one that secured reparations for Holocaust survivors from Swiss banks.

The complaint, obtained by Yahoo! Sports, alleges that the NCAA “has illegally deprived former student-athletes” from “myriad revenue streams” including DVDs, video games, memorabilia, photographs, television rebroadcasts and use in advertising.

At the crux of the battle is O’Bannon’s assertion that he never gave the NCAA the right to do such a thing.

This is a dangerous can of worms-- if the NCAA is illegally profiting off the athletes (and I think they are) then is the solution to end the profits or to share them with the athletes?

--Jason "this could be a major challenge to the notion of amateur athletes in college" Evans

COYS
07-21-2009, 05:44 PM
This could be (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news;_ylt=AiPSKuqU0MUDs0QebN308lE5nYcB?slug=dw-ncaasuit072109) very significant.



This is a dangerous can of worms-- if the NCAA is illegally profiting off the athletes (and I think they are) then is the solution to end the profits or to share them with the athletes?

--Jason "this could be a major challenge to the notion of amateur athletes in college" Evans

Wow. Things are going to get interesting really fast.

Lulu
07-21-2009, 07:37 PM
Ed O'Bannon should consider himself extraordinarily lucky to even be remembered and be grateful for that alone. I can think of many events that transpire in this world where the participants might find the footage shown many times, even sold, but they don't necessarily deserve to be compensated just for being lucky, or unlucky, enough to have been around. He should just share and enjoy the glory he was so fortunate to have been a part of in his lifetime.

The real problem is that an incredibly small number of student-athletes will ever become superstars, so how can you be expected to treat them differently starting on day one when theoretically, and in actuality for many as well, they haven't been identified yet. Free tuition and fees (not to mention free training and practice resources) is an incredible deal for most student-athletes. Maybe O'Bannon should have agreed to pay for all of his schooling and training up front just in case he was fortunate enough to have been part of a big moment? This sounds like me wanting all of my car insurance payments back because I've never had an accident.

Still, a point is to be made for the true superstars, who deserve to profit off of their own work and talent and not be forced into a collective if they should choose not to do so. The NBA is now forcing would-be professionals into college, where any potential income these wanna-be-stars might make as a result of "improving" college athletics is taken away from them.

Basically, the NCAA is not a free market. Every player receives the exact same deal and there's no bargaining for partial fractions of scholarships and/or salaries etc. Honestly, there are a lot of student athletes who do not deserve to have their full tuition and fees paid, in my opinion. You can even find those guys on the football and basketball teams sitting next to the nearest walk-on.

If they want to remove any profit-taking by the NCAA, that's fine with me though. No one should be getting rich.

My 2 cents.

SilkyJ
07-21-2009, 07:55 PM
This is a dangerous can of worms-- if the NCAA is illegally profiting off the athletes (and I think they are) then is the solution to end the profits or to share them with the athletes?



Major share the profits AFTER they leave school?

JasonEvans
07-21-2009, 10:37 PM
Ed O'Bannon should consider himself extraordinarily lucky to even be remembered and be grateful for that alone. I can think of many events that transpire in this world where the participants might find the footage shown many times, even sold, but they don't necessarily deserve to be compensated just for being lucky, or unlucky, enough to have been around. He should just share and enjoy the glory he was so fortunate to have been a part of in his lifetime.

I may be reading it wrong, but it seems like you are implying that O'Bannon was not that big of a star. If so, your memory is dead wrong. He was the best player on that UCLA team and a total stud in college basketball. I think he averaged 20 ppg as a senior and he won several national Player of the Year awards, if memory serves.

(timeout while Jason does a little googling to check his memory)

Yup, Ed won the Wooden Award, was named Most Outstanding Player of the NCAA Tournament after he scored 30 points and grabbed 17 rebounds in the national title game (on the great performances in title game history!). He had his number retired by UCLA, no small feat at one of the greatest schools in basketball history. He was the #9 pick in the 1995 NBA draft though his NBA career was largely forgettable.

Anyway, for Ed to want to protect his impressive NCAA legacy and not allow others to profit off it without his permission seems quite reasonable. He was not just some guy "along for the ride" when UCLA beat everyone else for the NCAA title in 1995... he was the man who led them to the title.

--Jason "when UNC sells a jersey with #23 on it and Jordan on the back, who gets the money-- UNC or MJ?" Evans

freedevil
07-21-2009, 11:09 PM
Pure conjecture, but I don't really see the players winning this case. NCAA athletes do get a free ride to college. How many of them become Michael Jordan?

I definitely understand the points that O'Bannon (and our man Shane would make in a very articulate and reasonable way) is asserting, but I feel like tons of businesses (for profit and non-profits) reap windfalls like this (although I'm obviously willing to be proven wrong on this). First thing that comes to mind are those pretty awful music contracts young artists enter into that pretty much lock them out of reasonable profits forever (I know it's not a perfect analogy by any means, but I'm just shooting from the hip here).

Kedsy
07-21-2009, 11:28 PM
Pure conjecture, but I don't really see the players winning this case. NCAA athletes do get a free ride to college. How many of them become Michael Jordan?

I definitely understand the points that O'Bannon (and our man Shane would make in a very articulate and reasonable way) is asserting, but I feel like tons of businesses (for profit and non-profits) reap windfalls like this (although I'm obviously willing to be proven wrong on this). First thing that comes to mind are those pretty awful music contracts young artists enter into that pretty much lock them out of reasonable profits forever (I know it's not a perfect analogy by any means, but I'm just shooting from the hip here).


I haven't read the legal papers (or even the article) but I think you're missing the point of the lawsuit. Nobody is allowed to use someone else's likeness in order to make a profit unless they have permission (and in most cases you can't use their name either). If the scholarship papers or the letter of intent or some other contract cedes those rights to the NCAA, then O'Bannon will lose. If he never gave permission then he has a decent chance of winning.

College players don't have a right to the profits from attendance or advertising revenue from the NCAA tournament or anything like that. But if the NCAA is/was using a player's likeness to make a profit, they need(ed) to obtain his permission. It is irrelevant whether he was a star or whether his education was paid for.

P.S.: NBA players' rights in things like this are governed by the collective bargaining agreement, but college players don't have one of those. I think there's a good chance O'Bannon is right, from a legal standpoint.

P.P.S.: Thinking about it some more, public service messages and news reels should be OK, because the purpose of the video was not to make a profit. Video games certainly should require permission. Selling a "One Shining Moment" video probably ought to require permission but may be a little bit of a murky area if it's considered to be like a news reel. I'd think jerseys with a player's name on it ought to require permission, but I'm not 100% sure. Jerseys with a number but not a name probably wouldn't require permission. I'm not sure what other items are the subject of the suit.

Lulu
07-22-2009, 01:27 AM
All this jersey talk is something I included in my original post as well, before editing it out just because the post was so long. I, too, feel that if anything the players might win the right to their likeness and name, but a jersey and the number belong to the school.

Still, I think part of the point that I was trying to make earlier and that is being missed (or wasn't explained well) is the part about the players joining the "collective" of all student-athletes when they start their collegiate career, or at least when they accept that scholarship money. I think it's easy to argue that the vast majority of student-athletes do not earn their scholarships in any monetary sense. Do we want to negotiate with every student-athlete and pay a few a large sum of money while revoking the scholarships of all the rest??? In my mind, by being one of the many accepting a guaranteed scholarship you are also foregoing the right to claim additional earnings if you end up being one of the more talented ones that actually bring income in (seeing as most student-athletes do not).

You realize that even the academic work of actual students belongs to the university, right? If you are a graduate student at most universities your work belongs to the school, supposedly in compensation for the other opportunities they give to you I guess. I cannot patent an idea I have as a graduate student if it has any relation whatsoever to my area of study. Anything published also belongs to the university. Right or wrong, it's what you have to agree to, in part for accepting whatever scholarship money is given to you up front. I suppose this is also true for most places of employment. Your work belongs to your employer, and if you don't like the opportunities the collegiate athletic system presents to you and feel like you are worth more elsewhere then go there.

O'Bannon is only doing this because his NBA career went nowhere. Collegiate athletics is more about the school, not the individual, and O'Bannon's name on anything but a UCLA jersey isn't worth anything, otherwise he can sell his own gear or sign with Nike (yeah, right).

I could go on and on, probably, but I won't.

A-Tex Devil
07-22-2009, 01:35 AM
The NCAA deserves to lose here if they are making money selling games because of players faces on video game, etc. Just saying.

If you've seen the new NCAA football game this year, homeboy playing QB for Florida is Tim Tebow. Looks just like him. They've been doing this in basketball for years. I don't know that a full ride to play college sports is a license to give up all rights to your likeness. I agree that the jersey and the name on the jersey arguably belong to the school/NCAA, but there is a reason that the NCAA waits for people to leave before putting there face on the various NCAA sanctioned video games. And those people make zero money off of it.

Anyway -- I think O'Bannon has a case here, but I think it's much narrower than the net they are throwing out there.

ice-9
07-22-2009, 07:13 AM
Hmmm. I don't think the NCAA deserves to win. After all, when a student athlete receives a scholarship it is from the school not from the NCAA.

If I wrote a book in college and became famous, and then some de facto national writer's association profits off of my name and likeness without my permission, I'd be pretty pissed.

I'm not sure what rights the school has to work that is produced while at the school. I know at Stanford if you start a business on campus and use university resources, Stanford automatically takes 10% equity; but the school definitely does not own the business 100%.

Do schools sell jerseys of its players? I can't seem to recall any examples. Obviously, schools benefit commercially from college football/basketball, but the benefits are indirect not direct. Schools don't make money off of players per se, but more off the team and the resulting externalities. I think this makes it OK.

However, it seems wrong to me that the NCAA can use O'Bannon's name to make a profit.

It would also seem wrong if the NCAA forced incoming student athletes to sign a piece of paper which states the NCAA can indefinitely use their name and likeness to make money, or else. That would make the NCAA a very real monopoly and an abusive one at that.

I doubt the notion of an amateur athlete will change though.

If the NCAA loses, it will probably pay reparations for past greviances and simply cease such commercial activities in the future.

DukeBlueNikeShox
07-22-2009, 08:49 AM
I never understood how these stores and "memorabilia" shops can legally sell products with college athletes' signatures. An athlete can't get a free burger, but a store can get the athlete to sign a poster and sell it in their store.

You gotta feel for the athletes. I'm sure they want to be nice to the "fans", but they also don't want the "fans" making a profit off of them.

As for Ed O'B, I think he's broke and needs some money...

dukelifer
07-22-2009, 09:09 AM
You realize that even the academic work of actual students belongs to the university, right? If you are a graduate student at most universities your work belongs to the school, supposedly in compensation for the other opportunities they give to you I guess. I cannot patent an idea I have as a graduate student if it has any relation whatsoever to my area of study. Anything published also belongs to the university. Right or wrong, it's what you have to agree to, in part for accepting whatever scholarship money is given to you up front. I suppose this is also true for most places of employment. Your work belongs to your employer, and if you don't like the opportunities the collegiate athletic system presents to you and feel like you are worth more elsewhere then go there.



This is not entirely correct- The University shares the intellectual property. Students and faculty can patent ideas and can profit from it if it is wildly successful (although most make nothing). The University gets it cut but the student or faculty get theirs as well.

theAlaskanBear
07-22-2009, 09:24 AM
I have a few thoughts:

It is important to carefully delineate between what marketing and production rights the NCAA has, and athletic revenue that schools obtain.

For instance, arguing that players deserve remuneration because of ticket proceeds is a weak argument, because you could never prove that the fans came to see a particular basketball player, and it could be reasonably ascertained that regardless of the players, people will watch college BB games mostly due to university affiliation rather than player appeal. I would argue that universities selling TV rights are a similar approximation.

However, NCAA video games is a whole different ballgame, and I side with the players...current software visually recreates collegiate individuals sans name (for obvious legal reasons). If you can't use a photo of someone with a falsified name, then why can you use a digital replication of someone with a falsified name?

Jerseys WITH names: players should certainly have the right to negotiate these proceeds with their schools.

Now, to make a case against the players, one could argue that universities and the NCAA are brands, and as such, players benefit more from the free marketing, training, facilities, media coverage, and scholarships than monetary value a player would add to the revenue streams.

superdave
07-22-2009, 09:53 AM
I know this is a dead horse in many ways, but why wouldnt the NCAA direct all copyright funds into a $2,000 per semester stipend for student athletes who are academically in good standing?

That would pay for a plane ticket home, gas money, car repairs, etc. The NCAA is a racket in many ways and I'd love to see some coaches and players start pushing for more fair treatment.

Super "How awesome did everyone think Charles O'Bannon was going to be?" Dave

Kedsy
07-22-2009, 10:35 AM
Still, I think part of the point that I was trying to make earlier and that is being missed (or wasn't explained well) is the part about the players joining the "collective" of all student-athletes when they start their collegiate career, or at least when they accept that scholarship money. I think it's easy to argue that the vast majority of student-athletes do not earn their scholarships in any monetary sense. Do we want to negotiate with every student-athlete and pay a few a large sum of money while revoking the scholarships of all the rest??? In my mind, by being one of the many accepting a guaranteed scholarship you are also foregoing the right to claim additional earnings if you end up being one of the more talented ones that actually bring income in (seeing as most student-athletes do not).


We're talking about what's legal, not what you think should happen in a utopian existence. Student-athletes are not part of a collective bargaining agreement (for one thing, because nobody is bargaining on their behalf). And they don't give up their rights because you think it's fair that they should. If they ceded their rights in the scholarship documents, then they gave up those rights for the future. If none of the contracts they signed take those rights from them, then they still have them. This is the way the law works (at least in this country).

Olympic Fan
07-22-2009, 12:14 PM
The NCAA actually has a pretty good (but not perfect) legal track record on these issues.

There's one situation of which I'm familiar. My father was a tax specialist (he worked for the IRS as an enforcement agent early in his career; then for a series of banks as a tax expert in the middle of his career; then as an independent tax consultant late in his career).

He told me that under the letter of the law, most athletic contributions should not qualify as charitable contributions ... not fully.

The essense of a charitable contribution is that you receive nothing of value in return. Hence, when you attend a $1,000 fundraising dinner to raise money for cancer research, the cost of the dinner is deducted from your contribition -- maybe $30 for the dinner and a $970 charitable deduction.

But major athletic boosters do receive benefits that are not deducted -- free prime parking at events, prime seats, the right to buy tickets that the general public can't purchase, access to coaches and players ... Sometimes the value of these benefits are hard to quantify, but they do exist and are not usually deducted from the full tax exempt contribution.

This came up in the mid 1970s when a few lawyers challenged the way the law was being interpreted, but as I remember it a little influence was brought to bear and the issue went away ...

Not sure if this means anything in regard to the original issue in this thread, but I am skeptical that anything will come out of it.

Stray Gator
07-22-2009, 01:00 PM
The NCAA actually has a pretty good (but not perfect) legal track record on these issues.

There's one situation of which I'm familiar. My father was a tax specialist (he worked for the IRS as an enforcement agent early in his career; then for a series of banks as a tax expert in the middle of his career; then as an independent tax consultant late in his career).

He told me that under the letter of the law, most athletic contributions should not qualify as charitable contributions ... not fully.

The essense of a charitable contribution is that you receive nothing of value in return. Hence, when you attend a $1,000 fundraising dinner to raise money for cancer research, the cost of the dinner is deducted from your contribition -- maybe $30 for the dinner and a $970 charitable deduction.

But major athletic boosters do receive benefits that are not deducted -- free prime parking at events, prime seats, the right to buy tickets that the general public can't purchase, access to coaches and players ... Sometimes the value of these benefits are hard to quantify, but they do exist and are not usually deducted from the full tax exempt contribution.

This came up in the mid 1970s when a few lawyers challenged the way the law was being interpreted, but as I remember it a little influence was brought to bear and the issue went away ...

Not sure if this means anything in regard to the original issue in this thread, but I am skeptical that anything will come out of it.

For as long as I can recall, the general rule has been that 80% of the total amount of an individual's contributions to college athletic booster organizations, for which benefits of pecuniary value will be provided, are considered eligible for the charitable deduction. In fact, I believe the Iron Dukes office specifically provides that advice to donors in their acknowledgement letter.

Kfanarmy
07-22-2009, 03:12 PM
Anyway, for Ed to want to protect his impressive NCAA legacy and not allow others to profit off it without his permission seems quite reasonable.
--Jason "when UNC sells a jersey with #23 on it and Jordan on the back, who gets the money-- UNC or MJ?" Evans

I disagree with this. As I look at it, the NCAA athlete is an amateur employee of the university. In exchange for his performance on the behalf of the university, he/she receives room, board, books, tuition, etc. The work product should belong to the university. In that sense, it isn't "his NCAA legacy" it is a small part of the university's legacy.

I also disagree with the notion that the NBA "forces" people into playing in college. there are multiple options, including not playing .

Kedsy
07-22-2009, 04:12 PM
I disagree with this. As I look at it, the NCAA athlete is an amateur employee of the university. In exchange for his performance on the behalf of the university, he/she receives room, board, books, tuition, etc. The work product should belong to the university. In that sense, it isn't "his NCAA legacy" it is a small part of the university's legacy.

I also disagree with the notion that the NBA "forces" people into playing in college. there are multiple options, including not playing .

"Amateur employee" is an oxymoron. Employees get paid and they have rights. And while it's a murky area of the law, employees generally own their own "work product" absent an employment or other agreement to the contrary. Finally, it's not the player's "legacy" which is at issue here, it's his name and likeness, the rights to which he doesn't automatically give away just by accepting a scholarship offer.

sagegrouse
07-22-2009, 04:12 PM
The NCAA actually has a pretty good (but not perfect) legal track record on these issues.

There's one situation of which I'm familiar. My father was a tax specialist (he worked for the IRS as an enforcement agent early in his career; then for a series of banks as a tax expert in the middle of his career; then as an independent tax consultant late in his career).

He told me that under the letter of the law, most athletic contributions should not qualify as charitable contributions ... not fully.

The essense of a charitable contribution is that you receive nothing of value in return. Hence, when you attend a $1,000 fundraising dinner to raise money for cancer research, the cost of the dinner is deducted from your contribition -- maybe $30 for the dinner and a $970 charitable deduction.

But major athletic boosters do receive benefits that are not deducted -- free prime parking at events, prime seats, the right to buy tickets that the general public can't purchase, access to coaches and players ... Sometimes the value of these benefits are hard to quantify, but they do exist and are not usually deducted from the full tax exempt contribution.

This came up in the mid 1970s when a few lawyers challenged the way the law was being interpreted, but as I remember it a little influence was brought to bear and the issue went away ...

Not sure if this means anything in regard to the original issue in this thread, but I am skeptical that anything will come out of it.

I don't know if it is law or regulation, but donations where there are benefits back to the donor are handled under the 80% rule. If you receive freebies like priority on seating or other benefits, 80% of your donation is tax deductible. For some organizations -- the Kennedy Center, e.g. -- you have a chance to explicitly decline any such benefits, thereby enabling you to take the full deduction.

I am not sure of the history but I expect this issue was wrestled with for a decade or more before this resolution occurred.

sagegrouse

sagegrouse
07-22-2009, 04:18 PM
This entire thread concerns a court case about athletes rights to "residuals" or other use of their name, photograph, etc.

I am not a lawyer but have been in business for decades, and I know nothing of the case or the documents, but......

Two of the entities most likely to have lawyered up and covered every conceivable issue with legal language and signed agreements are the NCAA and Duke University. I would be astounded if legal paper doesn't exist that explicitly covers the issues of the suit.

This doesn't necessarily mean the suit won't be successful, but it would be a matter of overturning a signed agreement, such as a grant-in-aid document signed by the athlete and his or her parent.

sagegrouse

Kedsy
07-22-2009, 04:27 PM
This entire thread concerns a court case about athletes rights to "residuals" or other use of their name, photograph, etc.

I am not a lawyer but have been in business for decades, and I know nothing of the case or the documents, but......

Two of the entities most likely to have lawyered up and covered every conceivable issue with legal language and signed agreements are the NCAA and Duke University. I would be astounded if legal paper doesn't exist that explicitly covers the issues of the suit.

This doesn't necessarily mean the suit won't be successful, but it would be a matter of overturning a signed agreement, such as a grant-in-aid document signed by the athlete and his or her parent.

sagegrouse

Yes, if there is a signed agreement ceding these rights it will be a lot tougher for the athletes to win the suit. Hard to imagine a grant-in-aid document giving away ownership of a player's likeness for use in a video game, but almost anything's possible.

Kfanarmy
07-22-2009, 04:36 PM
"Amateur employee" is an oxymoron. Employees get paid and they have rights. And while it's a murky area of the law, employees generally own their own "work product" absent an employment or other agreement to the contrary. Finally, it's not the player's "legacy" which is at issue here, it's his name and likeness, the rights to which he doesn't automatically give away just by accepting a scholarship offer.

pls read Jason Evans earlier post; apparently legacy is at issue. and amateur employee is not an oxymoron unless you stick with the most vague definition

amatuer: a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons.

Employee: a person working for another person or a business firm for pay.

if pay is something other than FINANCIAL remuneration, one can be both an amateur and an employee.

In most cases, I would anticipate scholarship agreements/contracts to enumerate the rights of the parties involved.

Kedsy
07-22-2009, 05:12 PM
pls read Jason Evans earlier post; apparently legacy is at issue. and amateur employee is not an oxymoron unless you stick with the most vague definition

amatuer: a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons.

Employee: a person working for another person or a business firm for pay.

if pay is something other than FINANCIAL remuneration, one can be both an amateur and an employee.

In most cases, I would anticipate scholarship agreements/contracts to enumerate the rights of the parties involved.

An amateur is someone who doesn't get paid. An employee is someone who does get paid. College student-athletes are not employees, no matter how vague or explicit your definition may be.

Indoor66
07-22-2009, 05:44 PM
An amateur is someone who doesn't get paid. An employee is someone who does get paid. College student-athletes are not employees, no matter how vague or explicit your definition may be.

Payment is the movement of consideration from one party to another for the performance of an activity to earn the consideration. It does not have to be $$$, it is something of value. Duke (school) gives consideration (education, room, board, medical care) for the service of the student athlete (playing his sport). Scholarship athletes are "paid" by the university for their performance. The terms of the agreement (grant-in-aid or athletic scholarship) determine the terms and scope of the relationship. Employee is a word not a definition.

Kedsy
07-22-2009, 05:53 PM
Payment is the movement of consideration from one party to another for the performance of an activity to earn the consideration. It does not have to be $$$, it is something of value. Duke (school) gives consideration (education, room, board, medical care) for the service of the student athlete (playing his sport). Scholarship athletes are "paid" by the university for their performance. The terms of the agreement (grant-in-aid or athletic scholarship) determine the terms and scope of the relationship. Employee is a word not a definition.

Yes, I understand about consideration. I agree with everything you said until your final sentence. Employee is a word with a definition. Do you believe student-athletes are considered employees under the law?

Indoor66
07-22-2009, 05:56 PM
Yes, I understand about consideration. I agree with everything you said until your final sentence. Employee is a word with a definition. Do you believe student-athletes are considered employees under the law?

I am not sure how to classify them. They act under the direction and control of the University. They are not independent. They do not pay tax on their consideration. What are they? Neither meat nor fowl.

Kedsy
07-22-2009, 06:04 PM
I am not sure how to classify them. They act under the direction and control of the University. They are not independent. They do not pay tax on their consideration. What are they? Neither meat nor fowl.

True. I'm pretty sure they're not covered by labor laws and they certainly don't have a collective bargaining agreement. I don't think a scholar, non-athlete who earns an academic scholarship would be considered an employee, or even close. But, like you, I'm not sure what you would call them.

You're right of course that the relationship is governed by the grant-in-aid agreement, and presumably it covers something about use of name and likeness in certain circumstances. Without knowing for sure, I'd expect there would be limits to that use, however. The most interesting limit is what happens after the player leaves school? I doubt the agreement explicitly says the university/NCAA retains the right to profit from the player's name and/or likeness in perpetuity. And if it does, I'm not sure that clause would be valid, considering the inequity in bargaining power between the parties. I expect that's why the case won't be dismissed on the pleadings.

Indoor66
07-22-2009, 06:10 PM
True. I'm pretty sure they're not covered by labor laws and they certainly don't have a collective bargaining agreement. I don't think a scholar, non-athlete who earns an academic scholarship would be considered an employee, or even close. But, like you, I'm not sure what you would call them.

You're right of course that the relationship is governed by the grant-in-aid agreement, and presumably it covers something about use of name and likeness in certain circumstances. Without knowing for sure, I'd expect there would be limits to that use, however. The most interesting limit is what happens after the player leaves school? I doubt the agreement explicitly says the university/NCAA retains the right to profit from the player's name and/or likeness in perpetuity. And if it does, I'm not sure that clause would be valid, considering the inequity in bargaining power between the parties. I expect that's why the case won't be dismissed on the pleadings.

I agree with you. Exploitation after the relationship ends is most inappropriate, excepting for a contractual provision to the contrary.

DU82
07-22-2009, 07:02 PM
I look at this lawsuit the same way I look at the writers/actors lawsuits regarding royalties for DVD sales for works that preceeded the DVD. IT was not mentioned in the contract, because it didn't exist. Of course, there's unions and contracts that cover a lot of this, but similar issues.

Ed OBannon (not Charles regarding the lawsuit, correct?) played before images of players were used in video games. It's fair to say that he never thought about his image being used in a video game, but that doesn't mean it's OK for UCLA or the NCAA to use it without his permission. Especially 15 years or so after he played. Therefore, he has the right, in my opinion, to seek out compensation for his image to be used in a FOR PROFIT item not related to his scholarship playing days (ie, actual game footage.)

If it's the scholarship that's the key (ie, a contract or "work for hire") then what about Trajan Langdon? He wasn't on scholarship at Duke (the Padres paid his way after signing a baseball contract.) He's not covered by that possible argument.

Lulu
07-22-2009, 08:57 PM
Others are exaggerating my statements and adding some hyperbole, but whatever.

I did assume there was something written and signed, but that lines become hazy when yet-to-be-imagined artistic video game renderings that did not exist at the time the documents were signed are at issue. I assumed this because I do not remember names themselves ever being used, even when playing "Double Dribble" on my original Nintendo. To me, it's an undeserved money grab.

So fine, let's assume the players somehow win. Who pays? NCAA? EA? Who gets the money? If these games so much as use only the roster heights and weights of every Div I player then I don't see how any one player can say they deserve more than a bench rider at Kennesaw State. Who's going to draw that line?

As mentioned, separating the value of the athlete's name and the university's brand is quite a feat for college athletics. And where on earth do you draw the line as far as likeness is concerned; I assume skin tone alone isn't enough? These are artistic renderings, after all, not stolen photographs. Maybe the likeness IS too exact... I just don't know where you're going to draw that line. It might sound stupid, but it could be a major issue here even just regarding future games.

What's the case for current athletes, say, sophomores whose "likenesses" appear in video games? They aren't even allowed to receive compensation, not in any remote association to their school and sport. Is it ok for the NCAA and EA to use their likenesses? just until they graduate? or when? You certainly cannot say they are owed money at a later date. I would have hoped that the university/NCAA did own any likeness donning that school's uniform in perpetuity.

What if the likeness was compiled from hours of footage owned by the NCAA?

EA doesn't need O'Bannon to create a successful video game. I hope O'Bannon just wrecks it for the rest of the athletes who were thrilled to be a part of such games, then he can be forever disliked. If EA wants to put an athlete on the cover, they can probably create an "award" that most any athlete would be thrilled to accept.

I really don't see why everyone thinks O'Bannon deserves to profit from a technology that wasn't yet invented in his time, when presumably every modern day athlete will not be able to do so.

JasonEvans
07-22-2009, 09:08 PM
I really don't see why everyone thinks O'Bannon deserves to profit from a technology that wasn't yet invented in his time, when presumably every modern day athlete will not be able to do so.

I am not going to address all your points -- in particular the one about the remedy and who gets paid is a difficult question to answer -- but I think you misunderstand one aspect of this lawsuit based on the above quoted text.

Ed O'Bannon's lawsuit is a class action suit representing all former and current college basketball players. So, this is not a case of him wanting to profit and denying said profit to others. Quite the opposite-- his suit seeks to reward everyone including current college players.

--Jason "I don't think this is about money for O'Bannon, he made 4+ million from the NBA and also played for a while overseas" Evans

NSDukeFan
07-23-2009, 08:32 AM
--Jason "I don't think this is about money for O'Bannon, he made 4+ million from the NBA and also played for a while overseas" Evans

of Patrick Ewing's classic quote: "We make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money as well." I'm sure I am not quoting that exactly correctly, but that is just to say that it may be about money for O'Bannon, depending on how his financial planning is. Hopefully this cynical view is incorrect.

brevity
07-24-2009, 10:06 AM
As for Ed O'B, I think he's broke and needs some money...

Looks like part of the thread is headed in this direction anyway...

Ed O'Bannon lives in the Las Vegas area and works at this car dealership (http://www.findlaytoyota.com/), a few minutes from where I live. I don't know him personally, but I did see him at a local casino that is sort of the place to go for the first 2 rounds of March Madness. They set up adjoining ballrooms with projection screens in all directions, and offer snacks, beverages, and timely betting.

This year there was a free throw contest. Two hoops were set up in the corner. People competed against each other, and the winner faced O'Bannon. The whole thing was co-sponsored by his employer. He stuck around most of that day, presumably to talk cars but more likely to talk basketball.

SI has a March 2009 story about him here (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/the_bonus/03/18/obannon/index.html).

Rich
07-24-2009, 01:56 PM
I really don't see why everyone thinks O'Bannon deserves to profit from a technology that wasn't yet invented in his time, when presumably every modern day athlete will not be able to do so.

I am an attorney who handles IP issues related to trademarks and copyrights and, when they arise, right of publicity, and I routinely include in my copyright assignment contracts the wording:


"XXXXXX hereby assigns, and transfers to YYYYYY all right, title and interest throughout the world in and to the Artwork including...the right to make adaptations or versions of the Artwork or any part thereof for any purpose whatsoever including, without limitation, the right to create converted works by reproducing the Artwork into any form or medium now known or hereafter to become known, including, but not limited to, all formats of electronic, magnetic, digital, laser or optical-based media..."

As someone whose job it is to craft agreements, part of the job is to take into account technology that doesn't currently exist and apply it to the current situation. If the student-athletes have contracts with their schools or the NCAA, I would expect that similar wording pertaining to Right of Publicity would be in there.

crimsondevil
07-25-2009, 06:04 PM
"XXXXXX hereby assigns, and transfers to YYYYYY all right, title and interest throughout the world in and to the Artwork including...

Not really very forward-looking, Rich. What happens in 50-100 years when people are living on the Moon? Expect some lawsuits... :D

Seriously, seems to me the issue here is really no different than selling posters or jerseys ( with name) of a former player. Surely there's been a court case about this before?

gotham devil
02-09-2010, 02:42 AM
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=dw-obannon020810&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Consider a famous play such as Christian Laettner’s buzzer-beating 3-pointer that lifted Duke past Kentucky in the 1992 NCAA tournament. The footage has been sold by the NCAA to be used in commercial advertisements for nearly two decades. In most cases, neither Laettner, nor any other player in the footage, has been paid. The O’Bannon lawsuit could cause the NCAA to retroactively compensate everyone in the highlight (the UK players guarding Laettner, the bench players, celebrating Duke teammates, etc.) for a cut of the revenue advertisements using that footage generated. Then there’s memorabilia, classic sports television rebroadcasts, in-house ads and so on.

moonpie23
02-09-2010, 09:09 AM
Not really very forward-looking, Rich. What happens in 50-100 years when people are living on the Moon? Expect some lawsuits... :D?

that's funny. I was actually in negotiations with a prospective client and and the LA attorney had written into the contract under TERRITORY: The Entire Known Universe.

I jokingly said that i would need an exclusion on black holes and parallel universes and he said QUITE SERIOUSLY, "ill have to get back to you on that".


hah....lawyers.....can't live with em, can't stuff em in a sack...

CameronBornAndBred
02-09-2010, 09:16 AM
Dear Ed,
When you accepted your scholarship for a free education and ......

Nevermind, I'll just stop right there.

allenmurray
02-09-2010, 09:27 AM
hah....lawyers.....can't live with em, can't stuff em in a sack...

By can't do you mean it is not physically possible (which I dispute) or do you mean it is not legal (which is a question to soon be decided by a jury of my peers . . . ) ;)

jjasper0729
02-09-2010, 09:45 AM
Consider a famous play such as Christian Laettner’s buzzer-beating 3-pointer that lifted Duke past Kentucky in the 1992 NCAA tournament.

huh? I think I may have missed that play. Which buzzer beating 3-pointer is the author referring to? Anyone have photographic evidence of it?

alteran
02-09-2010, 09:46 AM
that's funny. I was actually in negotiations with a prospective client and and the LA attorney had written into the contract under TERRITORY: The Entire Known Universe.

I jokingly said that i would need an exclusion on black holes and parallel universes and he said QUITE SERIOUSLY, "ill have to get back to you on that".


hah....lawyers.....can't live with em, can't stuff em in a sack...

Well, maybe in a black hole you could.

Jarhead
02-09-2010, 10:28 AM
Troll lawyers must exist. I'm using troll in the same sense as used dismissively with some posters.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1b/BergenTroll2006.jpg/70px-BergenTroll2006.jpg
I wonder if a legal troll might be someone who looks for ways to corrupt established systems just to collect a fee. Are they ethical? Is that what is going on here?

moonpie23
02-09-2010, 10:34 AM
Ambrose Bierce defines "lawyer" as: "one skilled in circumvention of the law".

:)

BD80
02-09-2010, 10:36 AM
that's funny. I was actually in negotiations with a prospective client and and the LA attorney had written into the contract under TERRITORY: The Entire Known Universe.

I jokingly said that i would need an exclusion on black holes and parallel universes and he said QUITE SERIOUSLY, "ill have to get back to you on that".


hah....lawyers.....can't live with em, can't stuff em in a sack...

Of course he knew that the black holes thing was a joke,

but the parallel universes?

Imagine the jurisdictional issues, choice of law, etc.

And most importantly, if there is an issue of performance in a parallel universe, can the lawyer and his parallel existence each bill the client?

RPS
02-09-2010, 10:47 AM
I'm not so much interested in the legal issues (such as whether these rights were signs away or, if they were, if it was via a contract of adhesion, etc.) as in what's right. In that regard, as usual (at least in my view), the NCAA wins and the players get hosed.


Ed O'Bannon should consider himself extraordinarily lucky to even be remembered and be grateful for that alone.And J.D. Salinger should simply consider himself lucky to be remembered and grateful for that alone.


I can think of many events that transpire in this world where the participants might find the footage shown many times, even sold, but they don't necessarily deserve to be compensated just for being lucky, or unlucky, enough to have been around. He should just share and enjoy the glory he was so fortunate to have been a part of in his lifetime.When movies are played and re-played, the performers are compensated. And if you don't think that NCAA sports is a commercial endeavor, I suggest you bring a camera to Cameron Indoor and try filming a game. Remember, the NCAA is even trying to preclude blogging and tweeting at games to protect its revenue streams.


The real problem is that an incredibly small number of student-athletes will ever become superstars, so how can you be expected to treat them differently starting on day one when theoretically, and in actuality for many as well, they haven't been identified yet.If you want to look at it that way, ask everyone to pay his own way and give scholarships to those who "earn it." Some coaches in non-revenue sports do something like that a lot.

But the NCAA doesn't have any interest in allowing players freedom. It wants them locked up and locked down.


Free tuition and fees (not to mention free training and practice resources) is an incredible deal for most student-athletes.You must be joking.

In general, D1 schools don't give a damn about players' education. They only care about eligibility. Graduation rates prove it.

Of course, I readily acknowledge that players bear some responsibility here too. But I place most of the blame on the adults who are demanding 50+ hours per week* and top billing in terms of priorities from their players.
___________________
* I recognize that the NCAA mandates less time per week, but the rule is rarely adhered to in spirit. For example, "gaps" are built into schedules that don't count toward the total but are used for film study, working out, and the like. These gaps are too short to shower, dress and do something else -- good planning, no? Remember too that injury rehab and "working out on your own" isn't covered either.


Maybe O'Bannon should have agreed to pay for all of his schooling and training up front just in case he was fortunate enough to have been part of a big moment?If he and his family had the money....

No player or family is ever taken advantage of, right? The bargaining positions are surely equal....


This sounds like me wanting all of my car insurance payments back because I've never had an accident.This sounds to me like the NCAA, as usual, wants to have its cake and eat it too.


The NBA is now forcing would-be professionals into college, where any potential income these wanna-be-stars might make as a result of "improving" college athletics is taken away from them.Sure, the NBA wants to keep its free minor league system.

If you ever doubt that college athletics is about the money first, last and always, think about the BCS and college football....


Basically, the NCAA is not a free market. Every player receives the exact same deal and there's no bargaining for partial fractions of scholarships and/or salaries etc. Honestly, there are a lot of student athletes who do not deserve to have their full tuition and fees paid, in my opinion. You can even find those guys on the football and basketball teams sitting next to the nearest walk-on.I don't want to violate board standards here, but I need to scream. Once a player signs a LOI, the school owns him. He can't transfer without sitting out. He can't change his mind if the coach leaves. Or if he was lied to about role or playing time or whatever. He can't take a huge percentage of the classes offered because of team conflicts (you know which comes first, right?). There is even dishonesty in relatively small things -- Florida didn't announce its DC was leaving for the NFL 'til after signing day. Wouldn't want to provide full disclosure for players and their families, now would we?


If they want to remove any profit-taking by the NCAA, that's fine with me though. No one should be getting rich.But the NCAA is getting rich. You know how much just the NCAA basketball tournament television contract is worth, don't you? There are a lot of rich coaches too. Mack Brown earns around $5 million per year but many of his players can't afford to go home or take a girl to the movies. And some of the players' parents can't afford to get to the games to see their kids play.

Meanwhile, the schools are using the revenue sports to fund athletic departments and, essentially, a good portion of their marketing and branding efforts. Remember how Duke's move up the college rankings coincided with the success of Coach K? How applications and alumni donations soar when teams do well? And, do you think as much gear would be sold without sports?

The NCAA is an exploitation machine, especially of poor kids with delusions of grandeur. It's what the NCAA does best.

Chitowndevil
02-09-2010, 10:57 AM
For those interested, here's a link to a paper summarizing a similar case:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1434986

From the article, there is clear legal precedent for liability based on 'identifiability' even if names are not used. As graphics technology in video games gets better, this part becomes even more clear cut. However the precedents involved are very complicated. Many rulings in suits involving celebrity identity usage are seemingly contradictory, and many of the individual cases had rulings reversed multiple times in the courts. Further, the NCAA has actually been aware of this problem for years, but the bylaws on use of student athlete likenesses are (perhaps delibrately) vague.

94duke
01-30-2013, 08:20 AM
Update...

"... motion to strike was denied ..."

http://tracking.si.com/2013/01/30/ncaa-athletes-can-pursue-television-money-judge-rules/?sct=hp_t2_a7&eref=sihp

Durham Thunder
01-30-2013, 08:31 AM
This whole matter is a dangerously slippery slope, but both sides have strong merit.

In regards to student-athletes receiving dividends, just look at college football. College football is incredibly greedy- money is coming out of pockets in hundreds of directions it seems. TV? Concessions? Jerseys, apparel, etc. Point blank, it does seem hypocritical NOT to pay athletes, after saying "We're going to pack a 90,000 person stadium and make 20 million dollars in a weekend, all thanks to your playing. But you won't see a dime."

But as soon as one dime IS payed to an athlete, it'll be a crazier land-grab than the gold rush of the 1840's. And that's the truth.

killerleft
01-30-2013, 09:59 AM
Of course he knew that the black holes thing was a joke,

but the parallel universes?

Imagine the jurisdictional issues, choice of law, etc.

And most importantly, if there is an issue of performance in a parallel universe, can the lawyer and his parallel existence each bill the client?

I think you missed the final episode of Fringe!

tommy
02-06-2013, 08:03 PM
Good piece here (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8914700/ed-obannon-vs-ncaa) on Grantland on the meaning of this lawsuit, on which O'Bannon et al have won the right to proceed. The closing paragraph is what is sticking with me:

"This is the one they can't stop. There's no negotiating a way out. There are no teenagers to intimidate, no coaches to knuckle, no administrators to cajole, no probation to be levied. The athletes have found a fair and level field on which to contest the NCAA's control over their lives, and the stakes are as high as they can be. And the public has started to turn around on the issue, too. For the NCAA to survive in its current form, it has to win this lawsuit or get the lawsuit dismissed. There's no third alternative. The NCAA can't settle and then go back to the status quo ante. It can't pay off O'Bannon and Russell and Robertson and all the rest of them, and then start business as usual again as regards Cody Zeller or Kenny Boynton. If it loses the lawsuit, the effect on the NCAA's financial structure would be profound."

Bears watching.

tommy
05-03-2013, 12:02 PM
O'Bannon's attorneys are now seeking class certification. Bringing out the big guns. If they achieve this, the NCAA is in deep, deep trouble. Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/the-lawsuit-that-could-bring-down-the-ncaa.html) has the story.

CLW
05-03-2013, 12:58 PM
O'Bannon's attorneys are now seeking class certification. Bringing out the big guns. If they achieve this, the NCAA is in deep, deep trouble. Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/the-lawsuit-that-could-bring-down-the-ncaa.html) has the story.

The NCAA is in deep trouble (as is EA Sports).

They might be in the most friendly class action venue in the country. If memory serves me correctly the SCOTUS did slap a recent class action case down out of CA down with the Wal-Mart decision.

I'll bet the farm that the class is certified and the 9th Circuit affirms the decision. The ONLY chance for the NCAA is that the SCOTUS has an itch to slap down the 9th Circuit/CA again for its "friendly" feelings to the class action device.

dukeofcalabash
05-03-2013, 01:02 PM
I can live with everyone making less profit, game tickets being cheaper, cable being cheaper, etc. Let the great players and great coaches who want so much money go pro. Let college basketball and football become once again college sports and not 'minor' leagues for the pros.

loran16
05-03-2013, 04:47 PM
The NCAA is in deep trouble (as is EA Sports).

They might be in the most friendly class action venue in the country. If memory serves me correctly the SCOTUS did slap a recent class action case down out of CA down with the Wal-Mart decision.

I'll bet the farm that the class is certified and the 9th Circuit affirms the decision. The ONLY chance for the NCAA is that the SCOTUS has an itch to slap down the 9th Circuit/CA again for its "friendly" feelings to the class action device.

Correct, Wal-Mart was the latest in a series of anti-Class-Action decisions by the High Court. And this is the type of case that would go up to SCOTUS.

The question is: Can an ex-player truly represent a class? And do the class members all have similar interests? The Wal-Mart case was struck down because the case essentially involved a pattern of discrimination....by Wal-Mart Store managers, but not by company policy (Which just gave them discretion to do what they want). Here, the NCAA forbids the paying of players, so that doesn't appear to be a bar.

That said, the ex-player vs player thing is what I'd expect them to seize upon, and it has a chance at derailing certification.

Duvall
05-03-2013, 05:15 PM
I can live with everyone making less profit, game tickets being cheaper, cable being cheaper, etc. Let the great players and great coaches who want so much money go pro. Let college basketball and football become once again college sports and not 'minor' leagues for the pros.

I have a hard time seeing how this would make anything cheaper. More likely it would make men's nonrevenue sports a thing of the past at schools engaged in major conference athletics.

CLW
05-03-2013, 05:27 PM
Correct, Wal-Mart was the latest in a series of anti-Class-Action decisions by the High Court. And this is the type of case that would go up to SCOTUS.

The question is: Can an ex-player truly represent a class? And do the class members all have similar interests? The Wal-Mart case was struck down because the case essentially involved a pattern of discrimination....by Wal-Mart Store managers, but not by company policy (Which just gave them discretion to do what they want). Here, the NCAA forbids the paying of players, so that doesn't appear to be a bar.

That said, the ex-player vs player thing is what I'd expect them to seize upon, and it has a chance at derailing certification.

From what I recall from the decision, the majority told trial/lower courts not to focus on similar ?s (which any lawyer with any intellectual ability can come up with) but rather do they all have the same answer or do they have too many varying circumstances.

The player v. ex-player thing could very well end the class certification (at least if it goes up to the SCOTUS). However, a "smart" trial/lower court may see that issue and simply say o.k. we have two classes that can be consolidated for discovery purposes (ex player class and current player class). If Plaintiffs' counsel couldn't find a current student-athlete to represent that class they could just limit the class to the past 20+ years of former student athletes who arguably have appeared in EA's video games.

I seem to recall a separate article noting that EA filed a report showing that there were many (in fact a substantial majority) of the individual players on their rosters were not accurate in one aspect or another to the real life roster so they may try to argue that there are simply far too many individualized issues re: whether any "likeness" were misappropriated.

It probably won't matter to the trial court or the 9th Circuit both of which have been fairly lenient on the standards certifying class actions (rightly or wrongly depending on one's world view/political leanings).

dukeofcalabash
05-03-2013, 08:57 PM
I have a hard time seeing how this would make anything cheaper. More likely it would make men's nonrevenue sports a thing of the past at schools engaged in major conference athletics.

Maybe those "nonrevenue sports" men's and women's teams would have to stand on their own two legs. Downsize the games, play only within a bus ride, and have fewer 'extras'. It would not be as bad as the system has now become to get money.

Dukeface88
05-04-2013, 11:00 AM
Maybe those "nonrevenue sports" men's and women's teams would have to stand on their own two legs. Downsize the games, play only within a bus ride, and have fewer 'extras'. It would not be as bad as the system has now become to get money.

I'm sure the 250 or so full, plus however many partial, scholarship athletes in nonrevenue sports at Duke are super excited at having those programs dismantled so the hundred-odd basketball and football players can go buy cars and what-not. Espescially when most of the cash will probably go to guys who will consider it a rounding error on their tax returns in a couple of years. Because obviously nonrevenue athletes don't deserve the same - or really any, if we're honsest about it - level of support as the more financially lucrative sports, because obviously Rebecca Ward, or Abby Johnston or Nick McCrory bring nothing of value to the school. And we can increase the influence of the shoe companies, and the agents, and the big boosters all at the same time, because those have been such healthy influences. Heck, let's fire K so we can bring in Cal while we're at it. Yes, that's clearly a much better outcome than the present.

I've said in the past that I'm not entirely opposed to giving players a small stipend, maybe allow endorsements like the Olympics do - but I don't think that concerns about nonrevnue sports can be simply brushed off. And if the goal of this lawsuit is really to improve the lives of players, it strikes me as a method that is likely to run full tilt into the law of unintended consequences.

sagegrouse
05-04-2013, 11:18 AM
I can live with everyone making less profit, game tickets being cheaper, cable being cheaper, etc. Let the great players and great coaches who want so much money go pro. Let college basketball and football become once again college sports and not 'minor' leagues for the pros.


I'm sure the 250 or so full, plus however many partial, scholarship athletes in nonrevenue sports at Duke are super excited at having those programs dismantled so the hundred-odd basketball and football players can go buy cars and what-not. Espescially when most of the cash will probably go to guys who will consider it a rounding error on their tax returns in a couple of years. Because obviously nonrevenue athletes don't deserve the same - or really any, if we're honsest about it - level of support as the more financially lucrative sports, because obviously Rebecca Ward, or Abby Johnston or Nick McCrory bring nothing of value to the school. And we can increase the influence of the shoe companies, and the agents, and the big boosters all at the same time, because those have been such healthy influences. Heck, let's fire K so we can bring in Cal while we're at it. Yes, that's clearly a much better outcome than the present.

I've said in the past that I'm not entirely opposed to giving players a small stipend, maybe allow endorsements like the Olympics do - but I don't think that concerns about nonrevnue sports can be simply brushed off. And if the goal of this lawsuit is really to improve the lives of players, it strikes me as a method that is likely to run full tilt into the law of unintended consequences.

Calabash, I have some sympathy for your sentiments 'cuz college athletics seems over the top. At the same time, if the $10.6 billion spent on college athletics were reduced to one-tenth the amount, we would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. To begin with, there are maybe 50,000 athletes who would lose their scholarships.

I like and enjoy college athletics and can put up with some of its evils because of that.

sagegrouse

Indoor66
05-04-2013, 03:46 PM
I like and enjoy college athletics and can put up with some of its evils because of that.

sagegrouse

I agree with you, Sage one. It is unfortunately true that there is no perfect world.

tommy
05-04-2013, 04:04 PM
I have a hard time seeing how this would make anything cheaper. More likely it would make men's nonrevenue sports a thing of the past at schools engaged in major conference athletics.

Why?

Duvall
05-04-2013, 05:46 PM
Why?

Most athletic departments are losing money now. Giving men's basketball and football players a share of various revenue streams without increasing the amount of revenue means something is getting cut. Could the cuts come from somewhere else? Sure, but based on the way athletic departments have handled budget crises in the past, cutting nonrevenue sports seems the likely way to bet.

sagegrouse
05-04-2013, 06:19 PM
Most athletic departments are losing money now. Giving men's basketball and football players a share of various revenue streams without increasing the amount of revenue means something is getting cut. Could the cuts come from somewhere else? Sure, but based on the way athletic departments have handled budget crises in the past, cutting nonrevenue sports seems the likely way to bet.

Duvall, buddy, in my view this is not true. Most athletic programs, especially the prominent ones, do very well. Now the USA Today (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1:)analysis of public school NCAA programs shows a majority receiving a subsidy (although not the most prominent ones). But that is misleading because of what it includes in institutional support, or subsidy:


Subsidy: The sum of students fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money. The NCAA and others consider such funds "allocated" or everything not generated by the department's athletics functions.

Donations directly to athletics would be a big number at Texas, Ohio State, Alabam and ................... Duke. Consider the Iron Duke donations for basketball tickets, which are a few thousand seats for a few thousand dollars each. Also, in the large state universities, student fees for athletics would also be significant. And, I believe, in some cases state governments give directly to athletics.

While most athletic programs do not cover their expenses through program revenues, the larger programs do quite well, thank you, with support from donors, students, and legislatures.

sagegrouse

sagegrouse

niveklaen
05-05-2013, 06:27 AM
Its aweful nice of O'Bannon to focus on the exploitation of male athletes by video games, but a bit sexist too - clearly an equal amount of money will be required to pay women athletes under title IX.

So now poor inner city african american kids will suffer life long debilitating injuries to pack stadiums and generate revenue to buy cars for rich sorority girls who play tennis.

dukeofcalabash
05-05-2013, 08:32 AM
Its aweful nice of O'Bannon to focus on the exploitation of male athletes by video games, but a bit sexist too - clearly an equal amount of money will be required to pay women athletes under title IX.

So now poor inner city african american kids will suffer life long debilitating injuries to pack stadiums and generate revenue to buy cars for rich sorority girls who play tennis.

To be honest, how much money do you believe that women sports pull in?

dukeofcalabash
05-05-2013, 08:39 AM
Calabash, I have some sympathy for your sentiments 'cuz college athletics seems over the top. At the same time, if the $10.6 billion spent on college athletics were reduced to one-tenth the amount, we would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. To begin with, there are maybe 50,000 athletes who would lose their scholarships.

I like and enjoy college athletics and can put up with some of its evils because of that.

sagegrouse

Sage, maybe the right idea is to have these athletes take out loans against their scholarships since they (especially basketball players) don't seem to put any value on them. When they grauate (or quit) and move on they could then start repaying their loans just like any ordinary student. I still say accept only academically qualified athletes and take back those 'special' acceptance considerations given to many athletes in football and basketball. Tighten up the entrance requirements and watch them go away.

JasonEvans
05-05-2013, 08:54 AM
Most major athletic powers intentionally shape their books in a way so as to appear to be less profitable or even unprofitable. They do things like attribute all food sales at football/basketball games to "food service" and they take revenues from the sales of TShirts/Jerseys/Clothing and attribute it to the school store. They will bill the athletic department for all the expenses for gyms and other on-campus sporting facilities even if those facilities are only used a small portion of the time (or perhaps even not at all) by athletic teams.

Why do they do this? Because there is zero incentive to actually show the athletic departments as highly profitable and TONS of incentive to show them as barely break-even if not money losers. Go ahead, cite me one benefit the athletic departments would get by saying they actually make huge sums of money on the major revenue sports. On the other hand, pleading poor allows them to beg alumni for donations; it gives them leverage with legislators who want to trim university budgets but know it is political suicide to hurt the football/basketball teams; it allows them to charge what they want for tickets, booster clubs, apparel, and so on; it allows them to cry poor and spend less on non-revenue sports; and (most importantly to this thread) it allows them to continue to say that the players should never, ever, ever get paid.

-Jason "I wish I was not calling these folks liars, but they have every reason to lie and no reasons at all to tell the truth" Evans

tommy
05-05-2013, 11:17 PM
Its aweful nice of O'Bannon to focus on the exploitation of male athletes by video games, but a bit sexist too - clearly an equal amount of money will be required to pay women athletes under title IX.

So now poor inner city african american kids will suffer life long debilitating injuries to pack stadiums and generate revenue to buy cars for rich sorority girls who play tennis.

Huh? First of all, universities already spend way, way more money on mens athletics than they do on womens', and Title IX does not seem to be an impediment to that. Moreover, even if it was, the effect of Title IX on this new issue, that being, paying players to come to school, is not at all clear. Paying them in the way being envisioned essentially makes them university employees. Do universities have to spend the same total amount of dollars on female employees as they do on male employees? Of course not. But it's trickier than that because the athletes being paid are also students. But nevertheless, if there is a bidding war for the services of Andrew Wiggins, and Kentucky pays him $500K to go there, does Title IX require Kentucky to also spend $500K on paying womens' players too? I don't think so. Nobody is going to be buying cars for rich sorority girls who play tennis.

Also, why is what O'Bannon is doing sexist? If he wins this lawsuit, then any athlete whose image is used is going to be entitled to be paid for such use. Women included. They may not get as much, because their images aren't valued as highly on the free market -- as measured by TV ratings of their games and merchandising of jerseys and video games and the like -- but they'd get something. At least that's my understanding of how it would likely work. As always, could be wrong.

JasonEvans
05-06-2013, 11:08 AM
Also, why is what O'Bannon is doing sexist? If he wins this lawsuit, then any athlete whose image is used is going to be entitled to be paid for such use. Women included. They may not get as much, because their images aren't valued as highly on the free market -- as measured by TV ratings of their games and merchandising of jerseys and video games and the like -- but they'd get something. At least that's my understanding of how it would likely work. As always, could be wrong.

The Baylor school store sells these...

http://images.efollett.com/spirit/v4/461/C5341-10299CA1.jpg

I can't imagine why they picked the number 42 to use on these shirts. Hmmmm.

-Jason "http://i.usatoday.net/sports/gallery/2009/11/24/s091124_dunk.jpg" Evans

tommy
05-06-2013, 12:07 PM
True, true, Jason. And there are tons of sites where you can buy these:

3360


And . . . I wonder why that particular number has been chosen??

3361

ForkFondler
05-06-2013, 01:38 PM
^^^^^
....so which one costs more and how many do they sell?

Duvall
05-06-2013, 03:29 PM
Huh? First of all, universities already spend way, way more money on mens athletics than they do on womens', and Title IX does not seem to be an impediment to that. Moreover, even if it was, the effect of Title IX on this new issue, that being, paying players to come to school, is not at all clear. Paying them in the way being envisioned essentially makes them university employees. Do universities have to spend the same total amount of dollars on female employees as they do on male employees? Of course not. But it's trickier than that because the athletes being paid are also students. But nevertheless, if there is a bidding war for the services of Andrew Wiggins, and Kentucky pays him $500K to go there, does Title IX require Kentucky to also spend $500K on paying womens' players too? I don't think so.

Well, why not?

Title IX doesn't require equal dollar-for-dollar spending on men's and women's athletics, but it does prohibit significantly different treatment. Would creating a new class of salaried student-athletes in selected men's sports qualify? Maybe, maybe not.

niveklaen
05-07-2013, 07:52 AM
Well, why not?

Title IX doesn't require equal dollar-for-dollar spending on men's and women's athletics, but it does prohibit significantly different treatment. Would creating a new class of salaried student-athletes in selected men's sports qualify? Maybe, maybe not.

I guess I jumped the gun assuming that salary spending would have to be the same under title IX - not really sure how/if it would apply - so let me revise a bit - if title IX applied it would dilute payments to revenue generating athletes and if it did not there would be lots of litigation about how discriminatory the failure to apply it is.

tommy
05-07-2013, 02:11 PM
Well, why not?

Title IX doesn't require equal dollar-for-dollar spending on men's and women's athletics, but it does prohibit significantly different treatment. Would creating a new class of salaried student-athletes in selected men's sports qualify? Maybe, maybe not.

I checked out the comparative spending on mens and womens's athletics in the most recent year I could find, which was 2011-12, and the disparities were pretty significant. I know these numbers are malleable, but it seems to me that the schools would have an interest in massaging the numbers to make them look as equitable as possible, yet still look at some of the numbers below. I rounded off the millions of dollars, and selected a handful of schools including major state schools, Duke, and a few mid-majors. The last column is a category for reported expenses that the school lists as "unallocated by gender or sport." OK, so in millions of dollars, here was the spending of the following schools on mens and womens athletics in 2011-12:




Mens

Womens

Unallocated



Alabama

49

15

33



Duke

45

16

16



UNC

30

11

36



Michigan

42

17

40



Texas-Austin

43

18

67



Kent

9

5

9



James Madison

11

9

14



Ball State

9

5

6



Stanford

33

18

36
























So as you can see, the big athletic schools are spending two to three times as much on mens as they are on womens athletics. I don't know what to make of the "unallocated" but there it is. If under the current scheme, the schools are allowed to spend three times as much on mens athletics as womens and not run afoul of Title IX, then in a post-O'Bannon world, why wouldn't they able to spend significantly more on paying male players than they would on female players?

Tappan Zee Devil
05-07-2013, 04:17 PM
I checked out the comparative spending on mens and womens's athletics in the most recent year I could find, which was 2011-12, and the disparities were pretty significant. I know these numbers are malleable, but it seems to me that the schools would have an interest in massaging the numbers to make them look as equitable as possible, yet still look at some of the numbers below. I rounded off the millions of dollars, and selected a handful of schools including major state schools, Duke, and a few mid-majors. The last column is a category for reported expenses that the school lists as "unallocated by gender or sport." OK, so in millions of dollars, here was the spending of the following schools on mens and womens athletics in 2011-12:




Mens

Womens

Unallocated



Alabama

49

15

33



Duke

45

16

16



UNC

30

11

36



Michigan

42

17

40



Texas-Austin

43

18

67



Kent

9

5

9



James Madison

11

9

14



Ball State

9

5

6



Stanford

33

18

36
























So as you can see, the big athletic schools are spending two to three times as much on mens as they are on womens athletics. I don't know what to make of the "unallocated" but there it is. If under the current scheme, the schools are allowed to spend three times as much on mens athletics as womens and not run afoul of Title IX, then in a post-O'Bannon world, why wouldn't they able to spend significantly more on paying male players than they would on female players?


I would guess that a very large percentage of the difference arises from football and that if you looked at schools without football programs (Villanova, Hopkins, G'town, etc) the figures would be much closer. That is not an excuse, but I think it is at least part of the explanation of why there is such a large difference.

tommy
05-07-2013, 06:54 PM
I would guess that a very large percentage of the difference arises from football and that if you looked at schools without football programs (Villanova, Hopkins, G'town, etc) the figures would be much closer. That is not an excuse, but I think it is at least part of the explanation of why there is such a large difference.

You're correct. In fact, once you remove football and basketball (including womens basketball) from the equation, many schools actually spend more on womens sports than they do on mens. Here are some examples, again in millions, and removing football and basketball expenditures:




Mens

Womens

Not allocated



Villanova

3

6

7



Georgetown

5

6

7



Johns Hopkins

2.4

1.7

1.4



Michigan

13

14

40



Alabama

6

12

33



Duke

8

11

16



UNC

6

8

36



















While this is good to confirm, nevertheless a lot of these schools ARE spending huge bucks on mens sports, including Georgetown, Villanova, and all the rest except for Hopkins. Spending on womens sports in total at these schools is dwarfed by spending on mens sports. I still don't see why it would be any different if "spending" included paying for the services of players. The guys would get much bigger "contracts" because as employees or quasi-employees, they bring in a lot more money to the schools, directly and indirectly. And someone with more knowledge than I possess would have to explain to me how Title IX would act to prevent that from happening.

sagegrouse
09-26-2013, 09:52 PM
Here's the link (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9728042/ea-sports-stop-producing-college-football-game). EA will go for a financial settlement for NCAA athletes, whose images, numbers and bio data were used in EA college football games. EA will no longer have college football games in its set of offerings.

The NCAA remains a defendant in the class-action lawsuit.

sagegrouse

greybeard
09-27-2013, 12:19 AM
This might have a bearing on an athlete's right to be compensated. Roger the King explained why the $750,000,000 in settlement of the retired players lawsuit, instead of the billions that everyone knows it will take to help these players have some sort of life despite their football injuries. What Rog said was, the players' case was substantially weakened because they in most all instances will be able to link their infirmities to their time in pro ball, as opposed to college and high school.

That's actually a very good point. College players should be able to "get" what the free market demands; they should then sue their high schools and colleges for injuries incurred and the actuarial costs associated with the likely life-altering effects of those injuries. Instead, these kids are treated by high schools and the leagues that they are playing in and getting injured in like lambs to the slaughter as just high school kids doing what they want. Colleges do the same, except in restraint of trade colleges collude through the NCAA set a very low ceiling for the amount of revenue these athletes will receive--a scholarship most don't really want or use, room and board, and whatever dough and/or the things big time dough can buy.

Roger has opened the door and some high school kids were injured while playing for some maniacal coach, whichis to say many, if not most of them, ought to and will sue their schools and the school districts in which they played, and I use that word loosely. The beginning of the end for the goose. Oh what we all do without the eggs. Maybe Woody Allen will write a sequel.

cf-62
09-27-2013, 12:32 AM
This might have a bearing on an athlete's right to be compensated. Roger the King explained why the $750,000,000 in settlement of the retired players lawsuit, instead of the billions that everyone knows it will take to help these players have some sort of life despite their football injuries. What Rog said was, the players' case was substantially weakened because they in most all instances will be able to link their infirmities to their time in pro ball, as opposed to college and high school.

That's actually a very good point. College players should be able to "get" what the free market demands; they should then sue their high schools and colleges for injuries incurred and the actuarial costs associated with the likely life-altering effects of those injuries. Instead, these kids are treated by high schools and the leagues that they are playing in and getting injured in like lambs to the slaughter as just high school kids doing what they want. Colleges do the same, except in restraint of trade colleges collude through the NCAA set a very low ceiling for the amount of revenue these athletes will receive--a scholarship most don't really want or use, room and board, and whatever dough and/or the things big time dough can buy.

Roger has opened the door and some high school kids were injured while playing for some maniacal coach, whichis to say many, if not most of them, ought to and will sue their schools and the school districts in which they played, and I use that word loosely. The beginning of the end for the goose. Oh what we all do without the eggs. Maybe Woody Allen will write a sequel.

Having played high school football, and deciding not to play anymore because I didn't want to RISK a severe injury, I can tell you there is no freaking way a lawsuit would make it out of summary judgement. You're either
A) Playing a game for fun
B) Playing so that you can earn a scholarship to college

Either way, you have no leg to stand on that you were used, and that injuries because of that were the fault of the school, or the coach.

Just because football is the most violent of the sports, it's a slipper slope, btw. Who's to say that all the catchers that ever lived shouldn't sue MLB, as well as their American Legion and High School coaches for destroying their knees? And any soccer player with a torn ACL obviously was over-worked, making that ACL more vulnerable. The basketball-induced arthritis is next.

At some point, WE -- the athletes -- MAKE A CHOICE TO PLAY.

tommy
09-27-2013, 12:01 PM
College players should be able to "get" what the free market demands; they should then sue their high schools and colleges for injuries incurred and the actuarial costs associated with the likely life-altering effects of those injuries.

So in your world these athletes should be able to reap huge contracts in college and in the pros to compensate them for their play, because their level of play is so high, they are such athletic specimens, their bodies are in such supreme condition that they deserve to make whatever money that the market will bear, but then they should turn around and sue for even MORE money, on the grounds that those very bodies that they just finished trading on to obtain those contracts (because they were such elite athletes), were actually irrevocably damaged and broken before those contracts were even signed? Howzzat??

greybeard
10-04-2013, 09:52 AM
So in your world these athletes should be able to reap huge contracts in college and in the pros to compensate them for their play, because their level of play is so high, they are such athletic specimens, their bodies are in such supreme condition that they deserve to make whatever money that the market will bear, but then they should turn around and sue for even MORE money, on the grounds that those very bodies that they just finished trading on to obtain those contracts (because they were such elite athletes), were actually irrevocably damaged and broken before those contracts were even signed? Howzzat??

The lawsuits against small colleges have begun, so reports the Washington Post, Oct. 3. Football MUST be made much, much safer to qualify as a sport, a game to be played. My point is that the stars and pro prospects should get paid what the market will bear. In the case of the Alabama's of the world, everybody on their quads are highly ranked high/prep school athletes. One would assume that lesser schools would pay the guys who end up on the Big-Program schools money, real money, beyond their scholarships. Alabama would have to match. The stars whose jerseys are sold should earn a lot based upon a free market system.

Being a great athlete probably makes you more susceptible to serious injury than lesser players. If the rules of college football made the game much, much safer, there would be fewer serious injuries. Yes, they should be able to sue and I believe they will win. We'll have to watch these two cases--there will be more.

Goodell all but invited them when discussing what he thought was a contributing factor to the player/plaintiffs accepting a pittance of what they were due. Goodell was full of it, the only reason the relative chump change was accepted was because many of the plaintiffs needed assistance yesterday that they absolutely could not afford.

Indoor66
10-04-2013, 12:01 PM
The lawsuits against small colleges have begun, so reports the Washington Post, Oct. 3. Football MUST be made much, much safer to qualify as a sport, a game to be played. My point is that the stars and pro prospects should get paid what the market will bear. In the case of the Alabama's of the world, everybody on their quads are highly ranked high/prep school athletes. One would assume that lesser schools would pay the guys who end up on the Big-Program schools money, real money, beyond their scholarships. Alabama would have to match. The stars whose jerseys are sold should earn a lot based upon a free market system.

Being a great athlete probably makes you more susceptible to serious injury than lesser players. If the rules of college football made the game much, much safer, there would be fewer serious injuries. Yes, they should be able to sue and I believe they will win. We'll have to watch these two cases--there will be more.

Goodell all but invited them when discussing what he thought was a contributing factor to the player/plaintiffs accepting a pittance of what they were due. Goodell was full of it, the only reason the relative chump change was accepted was because many of the plaintiffs needed assistance yesterday that they absolutely could not afford.

But EQUITY rears its ugly head with this approach. The star is not a star without the lesser lights. There is no star without darkness. What do you pay them?

Jarhead
10-04-2013, 09:47 PM
My posts in this thread amount to no more than one in which I comment on troll lawyers. The general theme in this thread is the paying of athletes for playing in athletic competitions. That I am against. I will agree that the award of an athletic full scholarship is, in many cases, inadequate. In those cases the full scholarships do not fully cover the expenses of earning a degree. They should. Here's what I said in a earlier post in another thread:

Full scholarships, athletic or otherwise, should cover the following costs of attending college: tuition and student fees, room and board, books and required educational supplies, and travel expenses home during recesses and certain holidays. Medical expenses with some limitations would be nice, too, but that's it. Luxuries such as automobiles, mobile digital devices, and partying should be totally the student's responsibility.

There are a few other things that I'd now consider, such as reading material and incidental recreational expenses. If that's not acceptable to any high school athlete then my advice to that athlete would be to seek a path other than college sports. Keep in mind that those bothersome rules covering college athletes are there to level the competitive playing field.

greybeard
10-04-2013, 10:36 PM
But EQUITY rears its ugly head with this approach. The star is not a star without the lesser lights. There is no star without darkness. What do you pay them?

It depends on the program, yes? Alabama NEEDS to have great players on the practice squad, and they do. I'd guess that every player on Alabama could start and be a major contributor on many high end Division I program. High end would include, what, the top 40-50 programs (pure guess). There must be a number of those schools who will have offered a second or third team player at Alabama decent money to play for them. Alabama would have to match.

But the point you make is well taken. You know that my principal issue is the danger that the machine and mega business big time football creates by rules that put players at significant risk. I believe that this focus on concussions and brain injuries, while understandably the highest priority, by no means occupies the field of epidemic and life changing injuries that are literally everyday occurrences from early organized sports on up. It needs to stop. If you approach a parent whose son or daughter is 10-11 years old and plays on a travel soccer team how many of the players have already had a badly (casted) sprained ankle, or a hairline fracture of a foot, the percent will be quite high. We are talking about children!

The real change, as I have said, will happen when a school district gets sued, perhaps in a class action, because of the number of ACL meniscus tears during a football season. The plaintiffs will hire an actuary and crunch the numbers in terms of medical costs reasonably foreseeable due to such injuries projected out throw an injured player's life. Then the computer wonks will run the numbers of how these injuries occur, how the numbers compare to even ten years ago, and rules are going to change, and change a lot. Even if a school district could afford the cost of defending such a lawsuit (right), the games will become more safe.

Back to your point, Indoor, a very good one. I'd have to be Adam Smithian about this, unless, as might be in their interest, the starters at a school will take less so that the guess they practice against, many of whom will take the lace of the fallen, to produce a winning program. So would the coaches. Health benefits for these youngsters greatly subsidized or paid entirely by the school would be a great beginning. Many municipalities do that for all sorts of municipal workers, you know, not just teachers, but cops and fire fighters, but that is stopping too. Perhaps one of the few industries that is growing by leaps and bounds on the bodies of fallen players who probably won't get a shot at the show. Right now Sabin cuts such damaged goods loose, unless they are key players, and even their immediate health costs are not covered by the program.

Like Robert Zimmerman put it, "Get out of the new way if you can't lend a hand, the times they are a changing."

By the way, if anyone knows of organizations working on such programs, please send me a private e-mail. I'd love to get involved for real. I do appreciate your patience with my repeating, I like to think, honing these ideas here. It would be nice to take my experience here to perhaps do more for change in both these areas. Of course, I'd keep you guys posted. The comments on this subject illuminate shortcomings and possible ways of addressing them. If the current board is a fraction of what Sage has described when DBR was DBR, I am still the fortunate one. of so eloquently

lotusland
11-01-2013, 11:48 AM
I wasn't sure which of several thread this would fit in best but as it pertains to the changing landscape in college athletics but since it seems to be related to basket ball I chose this one. The front page article indicates that Big 10??? Commish Jim Delaney issued a not so veiled threat to the smaller D1 schools:

"As the argument between the D-1 Haves and Have-lesses continues, Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney has issued a fairly significant threat to the smaller schools and conferences: give the big schools what we want or you might lose the NCAA tournament."

My question is what exactly is it that the big conferences want? I'm sure it boils down to money but I'm not sure what or whose money they want. Can anyone clarify for my edification?

sagegrouse
11-01-2013, 12:10 PM
I wasn't sure which of several thread this would fit in best but as it pertains to the changing landscape in college athletics but since it seems to be related to basket ball I chose this one. The front page article indicates that Big 10??? Commish Jim Delaney issued a not so veiled threat to the smaller D1 schools:

"As the argument between the D-1 Haves and Have-lesses continues, Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney has issued a fairly significant threat to the smaller schools and conferences: give the big schools what we want or you might lose the NCAA tournament."

My question is what exactly is it that the big conferences want? I'm sure it boils down to money but I'm not sure what or whose money they want. Can anyone clarify for my edification?

Much of what I have read involves "governance," such as the rules involving player eligibility. I know the big conferences would like to pay small stipends to the players, and the smaller schools are blocking it. The major conferences already have the lion's share of revenue from football and do very well in hoops.

sagegrouse

MarkD83
11-01-2013, 12:10 PM
I wasn't sure which of several thread this would fit in best but as it pertains to the changing landscape in college athletics but since it seems to be related to basket ball I chose this one. The front page article indicates that Big 10??? Commish Jim Delaney issued a not so veiled threat to the smaller D1 schools:

"As the argument between the D-1 Haves and Have-lesses continues, Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney has issued a fairly significant threat to the smaller schools and conferences: give the big schools what we want or you might lose the NCAA tournament."

My question is what exactly is it that the big conferences want? I'm sure it boils down to money but I'm not sure what or whose money they want. Can anyone clarify for my edification?

My first guess is the "big schools" (read make a lot of money from sports) want a redefinition of "amateur" athlete or "student-athlete". This is back to the paying the athletes question. If a school is big enough to pay athletes perhaps they should be allowed to pay athletes. Does this make the playing field unfair to smaller schools...Yes, so make the smaller schools participate in a different division. (By the way I am not endorsing this just trying to sort out why the commisioner of the Big xx would make this statement.)

lotusland
11-01-2013, 01:12 PM
My first guess is the "big schools" (read make a lot of money from sports) want a redefinition of "amateur" athlete or "student-athlete". This is back to the paying the athletes question. If a school is big enough to pay athletes perhaps they should be allowed to pay athletes. Does this make the playing field unfair to smaller schools...Yes, so make the smaller schools participate in a different division. (By the way I am not endorsing this just trying to sort out why the commisioner of the Big xx would make this statement.)

To me that doesn't seem consistent with this:

"Of course this isn't the first threat Delaney has made: not too long ago, he said that if the NCAA lost the Ed O'Bannon case that the Big Ten might de-emphasize athletics and move to D-III. If the suit is lost before this situation comes to a head, maybe he can just kill two birds with one stone."

To me it sounds like the Big 10 is vehemently opposed to redefining the student athlete concept. Or is it that he wants schools to have the option of paying a stipend but doesn't want players to earn endorsement money?

77devil
03-18-2014, 08:35 AM
Another lawsuit was filed yesterday. High profile sports labor law attorney Jeffrey Kessler brought an antitrust case that, if successful, could reshape the business of college sports. In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Newark, four student athletes represented by Kessler argue that the NCAA and five of its conferences have illegally restrained competition for the services of student athletes. The four plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of current male football and basketball players.

The players aren't seeking money damages. Instead, they want an injunction that would scrap rules prohibiting players from receiving financial remuneration besides tuition and related fees. By dispensing with a claim for money damages, Kessler believes the case could move through the courts quickly. "We think one of the most important things is to get quick relief," he said. "For a very long time, the NCAA has perpetuated a myth about amateurism. The only thing that's amateur about Division 1 Men's Basketball and the top level of college football today is the way athletes are exploited."

Kessler has quite the resume in this arena and has a former NCAA insider on the team.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10620388/anti-trust-claim-filed-jeffrey-kessler-challenges-ncaa-amateur-model