The plaintiffs in the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit didn't get everything they were hoping for in federal judge Claudia Wilken's ruling in its case against the NCAA Friday, but they got enough that the NCAA's current amateurism model remains under threat.
USA Today reported on Wilken's ruling, which certifies the O'Bannon suit as a class-action lawsuit that will be allowed to challenge the NCAA's current regulations on athletes' ability to enter "into group licensing deals for the use of their names, images, and likenesses in videogames and game broadcasts," Wilken wrote.

The injunction against those NCAA regulations sought by the O'Bannon plaintiffs could dramatically alter how NCAA athletes are compensated for their roles in college athletics. A ruling against the NCAA could potentially result in millions of dollars of television revenue being split with the players involved, and USA Today's Steve Berkowitz writes that "the ruling sets up the prospect of a fundamental change in scholarship rules and the concept of amateurism."

Here is the link:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ncaa-rules

(11-08-2013 11:30 PM)Maize Wrote:  The plaintiffs in the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit didn't get everything they were hoping for in federal judge Claudia Wilken's ruling in its case against the NCAA Friday, but they got enough that the NCAA's current amateurism model remains under threat.
USA Today reported on Wilken's ruling, which certifies the O'Bannon suit as a class-action lawsuit that will be allowed to challenge the NCAA's current regulations on athletes' ability to enter "into group licensing deals for the use of their names, images, and likenesses in videogames and game broadcasts," Wilken wrote.

The injunction against those NCAA regulations sought by the O'Bannon plaintiffs could dramatically alter how NCAA athletes are compensated for their roles in college athletics. A ruling against the NCAA could potentially result in millions of dollars of television revenue being split with the players involved, and USA Today's Steve Berkowitz writes that "the ruling sets up the prospect of a fundamental change in scholarship rules and the concept of amateurism."

Here is the link:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ncaa-rules

So no more names on the back of jerseys? No more picture images of the player on TV?

Scholarships for NCAA member institutions will simply have a clause stating that for the value of the scholarship the student-athlete assigned all rights regarding his image and name to the university for the purposes of game broadcasts, etc. All legal. He gets the scholarship and the university can enter into licensing deals for the use of the players' names and images.

(11-09-2013 01:54 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Scholarships for NCAA member institutions will simply have a clause stating that for the value of the scholarship the student-athlete assigned all rights regarding his image and name to the university for the purposes of game broadcasts, etc. All legal. He gets the scholarship and the university can enter into licensing deals for the use of the players' names and images.

I believe they already have such clauses. This ruling may cause such clauses to go away.

(11-09-2013 02:02 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 01:54 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Scholarships for NCAA member institutions will simply have a clause stating that for the value of the scholarship the student-athlete assigned all rights regarding his image and name to the university for the purposes of game broadcasts, etc. All legal. He gets the scholarship and the university can enter into licensing deals for the use of the players' names and images.

I believe they already have such clauses. This ruling may cause such clauses to go away.

Let's face it: the marginal value of 99% of these college athletes for video games, t-shirt sales, etc. is virtually nothing. Nobody ever bought an EA sports college football video game because Alabama's real right tackle was depicted in the game. A few high-profile guys, like johnny football or manti teo or tim tebow or jadaveon clowney do have some real value but almost all do not. The video games can easily get around this (if they wanted) by just using generic figures in their games.

And even the "going forward" stuff about player images on TV is bogus too because the same applies to that: Alabama fans do not come to the games and Alabama does not draw high TV ratings because of who is playing right tackle. Even on live TV, 99% of the players are just uniform-fillers. The fans tune in to see and root for the uniform, not the guys filling them. Again, a few stars like Manzell and RG3 are exceptions and you can make a case for them deserving "image licensing" money to broadcast their faces on TV, but not for 99% of the other guys. So any ruling that says the schools have to pay all the guys or gals who appear on TV would be silly.

Olive and Blue's post should be combined with this.

The ruling simply says they can sue as a class action for the future. The NCAA has gotten all they could reasonably have expected so far. But the remaining class action would be a big impact if they lost. Judge doesn't sound too sympathetic to the NCAA.