NCAA loses O'Bannon case

[realorange]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-me-ncaa-obannon-20140809-story.html#page=1

 

[SWFLCUSE]

So I guess we won't be seeing any more college sports video games for sometime correct?

 

[triplethrea]

So I guess we won't be seeing any more college sports video games for sometime correct?

Not quite, I've ready about a quarter of the ruling and there is a section that states that, while the NCAA has stopped working with EA Sports, they have not given any indication that they may not continue to work with them in the future.

My guess is that the NCAA dropped video games when they realized the hypocrisy would make them look bad in trial. Now that they lost and athletes will get paid for likeness regardless, they might as well restart with EA sports. No reason to say no to extra revenue, just because they need to share some of it.

 

[SWFLCUSE]

Not quite, I've ready about a quarter of the ruling and there is a section that states that, while the NCAA has stopped working with EA Sports, they have not given any indication that they may not continue to work with them in the future.

My guess is that the NCAA dropped video games when they realized the hypocrisy would make them look bad in trial. Now that they lost and athletes will get paid for likeness regardless, they might as well restart with EA sports. No reason to say no to extra revenue, just because they need to share some of it.

Well here's hoping you're right because I love being able to take over a school and winning national titles at obscure places.

 

[Waltdods]

Not quite, I've ready about a quarter of the ruling and there is a section that states that, while the NCAA has stopped working with EA Sports, they have not given any indication that they may not continue to work with them in the future.

My guess is that the NCAA dropped video games when they realized the hypocrisy would make them look bad in trial. Now that they lost and athletes will get paid for likeness regardless, they might as well restart with EA sports. No reason to say no to extra revenue, just because they need to share some of it.

I agree with your read of what happened with EA. I think though that the settlement agreement between the class plaintiffs and EA probably precludes or at least majorly complicates an effort to restart the video games, at a minimum for EA (and the EA precedent is likely to scare off others).

It will be very interesting to see what happens next. The O'Bannon opinion is obviously being presented as a win for the plaintiffs, and it is. But the actual relief is narrow and I would think probably something the NCAA could live with - bumping up the amount of scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance and allowing players to get about $5k a year in licensing revenues held in trust until they graduate or leave school. But this is because the O'Bannon plaintiffs were very cautious in what they asked for. My reading of the opinion is that they probably, but not definitely, could have gotten more if they tried.

Some of the factual findings here, in particular about the lameness of the NCAA's justifications for the amateur rules, are going to be hard for the NCAA to escape. There are already other lawsuits out there. I think the best strategic plan for the NCAA is to figure out a way to retreat to the rules this injunction sets. No idea whether they'll be able to do that.

(Who says being an antitrust lawyer isn't fascinating? Everyone. Everyone says being an antitrust lawyer isn't fascinating. At least for once it's marginally relevant, so I'll take what I can get.)

 

[triplethrea]

It will be very interesting to see what happens next. The O'Bannon opinion is obviously being presented as a win for the plaintiffs, and it is. But the actual relief is narrow and I would think probably something the NCAA could live with - bumping up the amount of scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance and allowing players to get about $5k a year in licensing revenues held in trust until they graduate or leave school. But this is because the O'Bannon plaintiffs were very cautious in what they asked for. My reading of the opinion is that they probably, but not definitely, could have gotten more if they tried.

Some of the factual findings here, in particular about the lameness of the NCAA's justifications for the amateur rules, are going to be hard for the NCAA to escape. There are already other lawsuits out there. I think the best strategic plan for the NCAA is to figure out a way to retreat to the rules this injunction sets. No idea whether they'll be able to do that.

Do you think they were purposely cautious in their strategy so that they would in a sense "get their foot in the door"?

If I'm not mistaken doesn't this ruling blow the roof off of everything else? If players are allowed 5k per year for likeness, why not allow more? Why not allow players to promote themselves in commercials for McDonalds or Nike? Why not allow them to be paid by boosters? Why not allow them to accept gifts? Why not allow schools to pay players to play at the school (if the school so chooses)?

 

[Crusty]

While there will be an appeal I doubt the NCAA will prevail.
Moreover, this is just the beginning. The floodgates are about to open.

 

[Waltdods]

Do you think they were purposely cautious in their strategy so that they would in a sense "get their foot in the door"?

If I'm not mistaken doesn't this ruling blow the roof off of everything else? If players are allowed 5k per year for likeness, why not allow more? Why not allow players to promote themselves in commercials for McDonalds or Nike? Why not allow them to be paid by boosters? Why not allow them to accept gifts? Why not allow schools to pay players to play at the school (if the school so chooses)?

Yea, agree this was a very intentional strategy to get a win, even a relatively narrow one.

I think your second question is the 64000$ one. I don't think this decision necessarily leads to the results you list, though it definitely could. The court did uphold some limits on the endorsement money, and strongly implied that the limit would be $5k. Simplifying a bunch, the NCAA is allowed the restraint of trade (e.g., prohibiting payments beyond scholarship money) as long as there is a (1) pro-competitive benefit and (2) the restraint is the least restrictive way of achieving that benefit. The O'Bannon opinion is more of a mixed bag on this first question than it seems on first glance - the court tears the amateurism arguments apart but then when doing the balancing analysis seems to recognize some benefits. On the second question, I think the NCAA could argue that the court effectively adopted the rule required by the injunction as the least restrictive alternative and therefore those limits should be allowed.

The court could have said flat out that the benefits the NCAA is claiming are bullsh#t (and it kind of seemed like that's what the judge thought). Then it could have just struck down the rule without bothering to look at the least restrictive ways of achieving the goal. By not doing so, it has (arguably) recognized these benefits that can then justify various other limitations.

 

[Briancuse]

So I guess we won't be seeing any more college sports video games for sometime correct?

Do they even make a college basketball game anymore, I was looking to buy one a couple months ago, and they said they stopped making them.

 

[SWFLCUSE]

Do they even make a college basketball game anymore, I was looking to buy one a couple months ago, and they said they stopped making them.

The last one made was 2010 but ncaa 2k8's rosters were constantly updated