Keeping Score

After Video Game Settlement, NCAA Is Last Defendant Standing

Any way you cut it, serious change has come to college sports.

  • Share
  • Read Later

College players, it seems, are about to get paid.

Exactly who will receive money, and how much of it, is still to be determined. But still, wow: the college pay-for-play movement, once relegated to the far-corners of academia, has now achieved some tangible results. According to federal court filing on Thursday, both Electronic Arts, maker of a popular NCAA-branded football video game (and, until 2010, a college basketball video game), and the Collegiate Licensing Company, a marketing and licensing firm, settled with the plaintiffs in the much-publicized O’Bannon lawsuit.

This suit, which actually combined three different complaints concerning the ability of former and current college players to financially benefit from the use of their likenesses, is headlined by former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, who originally filed his action back in 2009. The terms of the settlement are confidential, and a federal judge must approve them. But Eugene Egdorf, one of the plaintiff’s lawyers, estimates that between 50,000 to 100,000 college football and basketball players will be entitled to share in the settlement.

Though the O’Bannon case hasn’t been officially stamped as a class-action suit, “the parties agreed to a class-action structure to let the settlement proceed,” says Egdorf. The Birmingham News first reported the settlement. Also, EA announced on its website that it would not produce a college football game in 2014, and evaluate the future of the franchise at a later date. It cited the ongoing litigation as a factor in its decision. Earlier this summer, the NCAA opted not to renew its licensing agreement with EA. “We hope this is the first step in paying college players what they’re supposed to [be paid],” says Egdorf. The college pay-for-play movement has essentially killed a popular video game for one year. And possibly for good. It’s come a long way.

(MORE: TIME Cover Story – “It’s Time To Pay College Athletes”)

The NCAA, the main defendant in the O’Bannon suit, has not settled, and on Thursday its chief legal counsel, Donald Remy, told USA Today that “we’re prepared to take this all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to. We are not prepared to compromise on the case.” If the current college players receive money in the settlement, their eligibility could be compromised: extra benefits are a no-no under NCAA rules. When asked whether or not current players could receive payments and remain eligible, an NCAA spokesman passed along a statement from Remy: “We learned of this notional settlement today. We have asked for, but have not yet received, the terms so we cannot comment further.”

The NCAA may now be facing some tough options. If it denies eligibility to current players receiving settlement funds in a legal case that moved fairly through the court system, the backlash will be huge. But if the NCAA allows these players to keep money from EA, how can it justify denying access to other third-party revenue streams, like corporate sponsorships and payments for an autograph?

“If the NCAA lets current players keep the settlement money, it appears that they would be acknowledging players have rights of publicity,” says Warren Zola, assistant dean at the Carroll School of Management at Boston College and an expert in sports law and business. “Maybe the NCAA would define any settlement money as an exception to their extra benefits rule, but I suspect college athletes whose rights of publicity have been squashed would challenge this artificial drawing of a line. The flood gates could open.”

Even if the settlement payments are small, this is a key moment in college sports, and marks yet another shift in the ongoing debate about the fairness of the NCAA’s amateurism model, which limits the pay-for-play compensation available to athletes to the value of a scholarship.  “This isn’t just some fringe group shouting for change,” says Zola. “A group of athletes came up with a well-thought out legal argument that had a clear impact.” A settlement, at the very least, sends a formal signal that amateurism solely for players — in a billion-dollar professionalized college sport world where the NCAA and schools and EA Sports and countless other entities profit from players — is fishy. For pay-for-play champions, it’s a huge stamp of approval.  “This is further evidence that change is coming to college sports,” says Zola.

For current and former college basketball and football players, only the white whale remains in the O’Bannon case — the NCAA, and the millions in licensing and broadcasting revenues that they’re seeking to access. “The spotlight is now entirely on the NCAA,” says Zola.  “They’re the last defendant standing.” Fighting a movement, all alone.

(MORE: Texas A&M-Alabama, Inside College Football’s Supercharged Economy)


Here's my take: College "sports" can get the hell out of academic institutions.  The pro sports leagues can create two or three year "Sports Vocational Colleges" that teach a vocational skill at MOST.  That way the athletes can focus on sports 24/7/365 while learning a useful skill.  No "seasons."  It's football and baseball and basketball (and all the other ones) year round.  With no "off season", a player can learn a lot more about the sport and the leagues can see how well they'll hold up physically.  Nothing like drafting a number three pick and having them turn out to be busted.  And since their reason for them being there isn't to get an education, grades and eligibility aren't a factor.  They're there to prove themselves worthy of professional status.

A player who graduates from one of these can be drafted by a team or go free agent or, when the inevitable happens for the vast majority  of them and the player isn't up to pro standards as is usually the case, they can use the money they earned playing games to go to a real college.  They'll only be two to three years behind.

Organize them as junior pro teams, with each pro sports team sponsoring their own teams of players.  For example, the Portland Trailblazers would have the Junior Blazers (or some such thing).  The pro team would be financially responsible for paying them and training them and they'd go up against other sponsored junior basketball teams both in the school and between schools.  The "season" would be whatever term the leagues decide (three four month seasons, four three month seasons, two six month seasons, etc), with the emphasis on "championship games" because they can be promoted better and make more money.

It's not that big of a leap to doing this as one would expect.  Until the SVC's were built to accommodate the structure of the courses, the pro teams could rent the existing college sports infrastructure, and keep their players separated from the academic student body.  Once the SVC's were built (using the money from the pro teams, of course - no taxpayer money, no scholastic donations), the now unused college sports structures could be repurposed.

There is far too great of an emphasis on sports in academia - especially high school and college.  Of the number of kids who play, less than a tenth of them will ever be paid in any way by a pro team in their lifetimes.  That's a lot of work for very little reward.  I'm fine with paying players, if that's part of the deal, but that takes money away from the colleges.  If the pro sports teams want colleges to be the proving grounds for their future players, they should fund them from the ground up instead of using taxpayer dollars to finance their sports ambitions.

Donations to colleges would then be used entirely for academics - like it was always intended to be.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 319 other followers