- This topic has 35 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Get it while you can. On Thursday, both EA Sports and the Collegiate Licensing Company announced settlements in cases involving more than a hundred th
[See the full post at: NCAA Stands Alone; Video Gamers Mourn…for now.]I’m all verklempt.
From a PR perspective, that doesn’t seem to be a big win for the athletes (if the game is gone). So, if EA Sports made a NCAA game using schools’ real names and assigning strength to various aspects of each team (QBs, WRs, LBs, etc.) based on the real players’ strengths and weaknesses, but assigned random height, weight, skin color, jersey numbers, etc., could they still make a game? From a marketability perspective, where’s the line between keeping it “realistic” without infringing on athletes’ rights and making it too unrealistic for people to care. For example, how important is it for people that the game weights teams’ ability based on their actual projected strengths?
And what do Madden and other NFL games do as far as compensation? Are they paying the NFL or players?PIR, I would think NFL issues are covered in collective bargaining agreements between NFLPA and the league, and any respective agreements between the league and producers of products.
As far as college, the whole thing has to do with the NCAA, “amateurism”, and paying players.
The NCAA is fighting for it’s life here basically, and they’re on shaky ground. Depending upon how this plays out, it could be one more nail in their overall coffin. And possibly a big one.
Right now, EA just wants out of the middle of it. Once it’s all settled, especially if the NCAA goes down, I’d be surprised if new agreements weren’t in place quickly such that the series could then continue.
While I’m not an EA NCAA Football fanboy like some (the most recent one I own is ’04), thus maybe I’m not the best one to speak to this….
There is a definite plus to the realism aspect. But the games are made such that one can customize strengths, appearances, names, etc.
So to make my way around to addressing your point, lol….for the consumer, it seems EA could continue to produce a customizable game. But currently, personalization, including school/team names, logos, stadiums, etc., on the part of EA, would be a no no.
My suspicions are that EA has no fully customizable product ready for next year, and even if they did they probably aren’t confident in it’s profitability, mostly for the reasons you layed out.
ie…where is the line that makes it worth it to produce such a product?
How much of the “full cost of attendance” stipend would be covered if the D1-A schools’ athletes received 50-75% of the video game licensing fee?
Seems like a win-win all the way around to me. Guess it makes too much sense to the greedy-ass powers that be. I’m sure they think this will cause gamers to revolt against the athletes and be a PR win. Because they are THAT stupid.
^BJD95, one of the better ideas I’ve seen to defray tuition costs using said fees.
And I’m guessing, like Wufpacker, EA just wasn’t prepared for an alternative this year. But you can expect those games back, just in a modified form. Any artist has some creative license. Assigning players skill levels, sizes and weights, is arbitrary. Or allow players to build their own teams and assign numbers, etc.
I still say the NCAA and its member institutions will come out smelling like a rose on this one. As long as they are tax exempt organizations, there will be no paying of players.
Two things: 1) WhiteShoes67, I ask this question without full understanding, so don’t think that I’m goading here … how does the NCAA justify its tax exemption? 2) Am I reading this correctly that the NCAA is settling, and then challenging the settlement?
SaccoV, check out http://www.law.illinois.edu/bljournal/post/2010/02/21/Is-the-NCAA-Fulfilling-its-Tax-Exempt-Status.aspx to learn about the NCAA tax exempt status. It’s a bit dated but still a good summary.
And no, the NCAA isn’t settling, only the licensing company and EA Sports.
If the NCAA has to start sharing revenue directly with individual players, or even establishing a trust for individual athletes or groups of athletes, then it’s paying players. If it, or the member school, is paying players, then those payments are taxable. Tuition, etc. It ain’t happening. Is the NCAA a mockery? Yes. But as TJfoose and others have pointed out, the direct benefits these athletes receive is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I’m all for changes, but paying college athletes is ridiculous.
I am one of those fans in the endzone (the one wearing red just to the left of the goalpost). How do I go about adding myself to the lawsuit for compensation?
^…lol. I really wish I’d have followed this more. But for the life of me, I don’t understand why EA and the licensing company bailed. I’m sure they have fantastic attorneys. I just don’t get it. On the surface, the case against EA and CLC looked stronger. Will be interesting to see if O’Bannon’s class case against the NCAA gets certified. For one opinion, see http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130619/ncaa-ed-obannon-hearing-primer/index.html. I just don’t see it. There are plenty of comparable organizations who operate like the NCAA, claim tax exempt status, yet earn buttloads of money. Seems to me the plaintiffs have to prove that the NCAA should not be tax exempt, something that the IRS hasn’t seemed fit to do. There’s just no escaping that tax exempt organizations are giving those players a forum to enhance and display their value. The players didn’t have to agree to that arrangement, but they did.
The ncaa is beyond hypocritical. (Read “Undue Process” by Don Yeagar). Look down the road in chapel hill – fake classes created to keep functional illiterates on the field to generate revenue. Penalty? Slap on the wrist.
Going to college doesn’t mean you sign away your rights to your own likeness. That’s absurd out of the box. And the issue of paying players?
Give them a monthly stipend ala the ROTC cadets (I think it’s up to $400 a month now). There. Oh, and issue said stipend to ALL varsity sport, non-club, athletic scholarship receiving athletes: from Gymnasts to the Lacrosse team. Problem muted.
^Of course the NCAA is hypocritical, but if you believe this is really about NCAA athletes getting a share of the pie to distribute among their teammates and other sports programs, I’ve got a pile of poop to sell you. It’s about individual athletes thinking they have individual value beyond what the NCAA and its member institutions provide. I think any good accountant and econonomist can prove otherwise.
Those players entered into a voluntary agreement with the NCAA. The NCAA and it’s member institutions provided them with a platform and training to improve their skills. If they wanted to enter the market, they could’ve. Get a job. Without the NCAA or colleges, the talent for which they’re seeking compensation is largely worthless.
When it all boils down, I can seriously do without seeing any of these likenesses in person, on EA Sports, ESPN, Fox Sports, ABC, CBS, and on and on…
I’m just wondering how long it will be before someone hires a lawyer to determine, from the date birth forward, how much a parent owes a child for breathing air, taking up space, and just basically being on the planet.
“It’s about individual athletes thinking they have individual value beyond what the NCAA and its member institutions provide.”
Yep.
They don’t get it. Their marketability is due to the school. People pay because they represent the school. They don’t pay to see the athlete.
Exhibit A: How many of you State fans bought the jersey of your favorite Duke or u*nc All American? How many Meechigan fans are walking around in Braxton Miller jerseries.
Take the name off the front of the jersey and the marketability crashes.
Have that same player withdraw from school and play in a county rec league and then gauge his market value.
How many folks show up and tune in to watch NC State vs u*nc basketball games? How many do the same when those same exact players competed against one another in the summer leagues?
“I’m just wondering how long it will be before someone hires a lawyer to determine, from the date birth forward, how much a parent owes a child for breathing air, taking up space, and just basically being on the planet.”
Where you been? I know you meant that as a joke, but you’re not far off from today’s reality. Replace child with government and add global warming. Oops, I mean climate change.
I would not at all be as interested in NC State athletics if we went back to a “pure amateur” model and were essentially televising intramurals. Nor would I enjoy the games as much if the universities were decoupled altogether.
The athletes create value, as does the institution. It can be more equitably be a mutually beneficial relationship. It is way too one-sided now.
You can call my views “insane” or “outrageous” but they are 100% in line with DY.
^I respect Dr. Yow, but I have a big problem with this line of thinking, both in principle, and in terms of the financial repercussions.
If, and it’s a big if, the amateur status of the athlete is not jeopardized by distribution of these moneys, which is what O’Bannon’s attorneys are trying to argue, and you can come up with a way to equitably distribute moneys to offset the costs of athletics, I’m all for it. But if those payments aren’t divided equally and distributed equally, then I see no way that you can justify them as amateurs, or the member institutions or NCAA as tax exempt institutions.
The O’Bannon lawyers say the lawsuit doesn’t jeopardize amateur status. They claim these payments aren’t income, but compensation for property theft. But I just don’t see how you can make that argument effectively if the IRS says those institutions are tax exempt. It’s the equivalent of me volunteering at the Salvation Army, them using my likeness to solicit for donations, or advertise their services, and me deciding I’d like to sue because the SA somehow benefited from my volunteered time. It doesn’t matter if certain players happen to add some value to the university or if the current arrangement is one-sided. It isn’t a marketplace.
” if EA Sports made a NCAA game using schools’ real names and assigning strength to various aspects of each team (QBs, WRs, LBs, etc.) based on the real players’ strengths and weaknesses, but assigned random height, weight, skin color, jersey numbers, etc., could they still make a game? ”
That’s what a lot of the not-top-of-the-line sports games used to do, and even they used similar or relatable names.
To me, I can see the case against EA and others being stronger, because they’re profiting (per IRS) by the sale of someone else’s likeness. But a school isn’t profiting directly from that sale. They may facilitate it, but as long as they’re using the benefits from that sale to further their mission, which they are, then they can and should do it. That’s the crux of the argument as I understand it.
As a huge fan of the NCAA series…this is devastating. It is almost as bad as when the College Hoops/NCAA Basketball games discontinued. Realism (as close as possible) is a necessity for fans of the game. There are whole files one can download that will name and re-order your roster based on current depth charts. The stadium announcer will even say their name in game.
Not mentioned here in the comments…EA was all ready to produce another game sans the NCAA. It was the conferences like the SEC, Pac-12 etc who killed this project. EA never cared about the NCAA, all they did was add “authenticity” and the presence of ESPN in the more recent games took care of that part.
My problem with this situation is its a class action lawsuit. Meaning the lawyers are going to get a big peice of the pie. for instance: Say you’ve got 6 law firms working jointly with 20 lawyers. On the otherside you’ve got 250,000 players. The lawyers will get at least 40% of the money. That’s 16 million divided up between 20 people coming out to 800,000 per lawyer. The players lets say receive the other 60%. That’s 24 million divided up between 250,000 coming out to 96 dollars per player. Who’s getting f*cked here?
I thought it was an honor to be on a video game even with my 63 rating. Not only do these kids look like arses by suing, but they have now ruined it for all the fans of the game and for the future players who won’t get a chance to play as themselves.
^mista wolf – you hit the nail on the head. The rotten trial lawyers are the only ones to win here. They only need to find 1 or 2 gullible students to be the face of the Lawsuit. Then they can bring suit on behalf of the entire ‘class.’ imagine all the hard-working sw engineers who poured out their heart and soul into making that video game over a 10 year period of time. And as you articulated, the slimebag lawyers will capture almost all of the remaining value after killing the product.
They did the class action thing because it was the only way to get sufficient publicity and traction. I don’t blame them in the slightest.
I think it’s simple equity. The revenue sport athletes make all the non-revenue schollys possible, and a sh-t ton of $$ for the school on top of that. Their workload is unquestionably greater.
They are simultaneously less likely to get “spending money from home” and have no time for a part-time job. Having enough spending money to live like a normal, middle class college student is not a sign of end times. It’s common freaking sense, and would take a lot of the corruption (not all, but quite a bit) out of the equation.
One of those rare times we’ll have to respectfully disagree.
And I don’t fully accept the premise that “The revenue sport athletes make all the non-revenue schollys possible”. I don’t think it is [only] the athlete that generates that revenue, but that’s a different matter for a different day.
Scholarship athletes are free to get jobs anytime they want. They can chose to do anything they want with their time, anytime they want. They can quit their college team and attempt join the professional ranks anytime they chose. Problem is, they have to stop being scholarship athletes to do it.
Oh. I guess it must not be so bad.
A school invests hundreds of thousands of dollars (per year, at most of the big boy schools) for each 4, 5, sometimes 6 year scholar athlete. It is the rare exception that an individual athlete returns the amount invested in them.
It’s not slavery, it’s not abuse, it’s not indentured servitude. No one is forcing the athlete to do anything. They participate in athletics because they want to. Simple economic theory tells us they get something out of it (fame, glory, education, notoriety, etc) more valuable to them then the time and effort they invest.
Yes, the status quo needs reform. To me, Jeremy Bloom is the cover boy for that issue. And the NCAA is unjust, corrupt, and self serving. But if it is the contention that schools owe the student athletes spending money, then I counter that the those same student athletes therefore owe every player, administrator, coach, fan, referee, grounds crew, stadium architect, construction worker, vendor, etc who came before them for creating the very system and culture that affords them such grandiose opportunities simply because they are good at playing a game.
Where’s my cut?
Those that come out signing multi-million dollar contracts, forgive me if I don’t shed a tear. Show me where else I can get that kind of return on a 2-5 year investment my time, all the while having literally 100’s of support staff personnel working full time and overtime to see that I succeed.
Where’s the universities return for the scholarship athlete who never advances beyond the scout team? Or the cross country runner? Or the swimmer?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
