The Ed O’Bannon lawsuit vs. the NCAA, EA Sports and Collegiate Licensing Company dates back to 2009 when former college athletes spearhead by UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon and Arizona State University quarterback Samuel Keller filed class action lawsuits against the NCAA, video game manufacturer Electronic Arts (EA), and Collegiate Licensing Company. The basis of the plaintiffs' argument is that the NCAA and co-defendants violated antitrust law by conspiring to fix a price of zero for use of college athletes' likenesses in their products. They did this, by effectively forcing athletes to sign a waiver at the start of their careers releasing their likeness rights for perpetuity. The NCAA's chief argument against certification of this case is that certain members of the proposed lawsuit might benefit more than others such as the “star quarterback”. Regardless of who might benefit more, the O’Bannon Case is calling into question why the NCAA makes money off of college athletes, and why these athletes are not compensated.
Both the NCAA and EA Sports have claimed that they don't model players in the NCAA Football video game series after real players, but that claim has been proven untrue. When you look at the players' attributes in the game it becomes obvious which player is who. EA Sports has tried to make their game as realistic as possible and even Tim Tebow's name was used in a play call in NCAA Football 10, which clearly refutes EA and the NCAA's claim.
The NCAA is concerned about losing this case because the O'Bannon side has a legitimate case, and defeat for the NCAA in a class-action suit could put its existence in jeopardy. It would at the least, make for some sweeping changes to the landscape of major college athletics. The NCAA recently made the decision to sever its ties with the EA Sports' college football game. That was damage control on the NCAA's part, and a sign that there is deep concern within the governing body over the potential outcome of this lawsuit.
College basketball analyst Jay Bilas added further fuel to the fire Tuesday, exposing the latest example of the NCAA's hypocrisy. The NCAA claimed that it does not sell specific player jerseys and thus profit off of an athlete’s likeness alleging those jerseys are just generic representations of their respective schools. Bilas posted a screen shot demonstrating that you can enter a player's name into the search function for NCAA's online store and find replicas of the jerseys’ the top players wear. For example, a search for Johnny Manziel leads to a screen full of Texas A&M No. 7 jerseys and shirts. The same phenomenon occurred when searching for other prominent college athletes. The NCAA made immediate changes to their web site after this but the damage had been done. For the NCAAs’ own website to link a player’s name to their jersey number makes business sense, but it goes against every argument they have against the O’Bannon case and it comes at a particularly critical time for the NCAA.
The problem the NCAA has is within their rules. If you don’t want to pay athletes or provide them with compensation outside of a scholarship, they should at least be able to benefit outside of the university. There is no reason why college athletes shouldn’t be able to have autograph signings, do commercials, and make appearances, to benefit off their names and provide for their families. No other student is told they can’t do that, not even other students on scholarship. If the O’Bannon case defeats the NCAA, then there will be changes in college sports. Whatever decision the judge reaches, the debate will continue; should college athletes be paid or are their scholarships enough?
No comments:
Post a Comment