Are College Sports About To Change In Ways We Don't Understand?

[Galway Eagle]

Years & years.

Plaintiffs keep changing their cries.

What the case will even be ABOUT is in question.

So really this thread should be more like Are college sports going to change during our lifetime in ways we don't understand?

[Jay Bee]

So really this thread should be more like Are college sports going to change during our lifetime in ways we don't understand?

Well, people could decide to change their current ways today because of changes that they believe may come years down the line... proactive/reactive.

[Tugg Speedman]

Anyone know the status of the court case?  Like is there a verdict expected anytime soon? Or is this going to be a case that takes ages and ages?

The judge is expected to rule on the class action status in the next month or so.  This is a big deal and if granted (many seem to think it will) the case will move forward court date of next summer (unless a pre-trial deal is struck before then).

[dgies9156]

As I already noted, change is coming. The NCAA can act with hubris or it can act rationally and reasonably.

An institution acting with hubris buries it head in the sand and acts as if nothing is changing. They think goodwill, history, public opinion and brand loyalty will carry the day. Baseball did that and guess what -- it gives them that ridiculous contract Albert Pujos signed with the California Angels.

An institution that recognizes change is afoot, manages changes and engages its shareholders and stakeholders in a positive discussion aimed at resolving a problem. It means colleges have to recognize the past is not a prologue for the future. It means if you don't find a way to share the revenue now, somebody is going to do it for you.

Best I can tell, the NCAA is hiding in its past and pretending the future is 1950. As a consequence, we're in for a rough ride and it's hard to say what this "all our tomorrows will equal our yesterdays" strategy will have on Marquette.

I'm not optimistic!

[forgetful]

Share TV revenues with who?  From the primer above:

The NCAA could lose a jury trial, and the jurors could award the plaintiffs everything they want. If this held up on appeal -- remember, damages in antitrust cases are tripled -- it likely would bankrupt the NCAA and force schools to form a new governing body. It also would force schools to negotiate a better deal for athletes, who would now be legally entitled to a share of television revenue. This would result in more money for the players, less money for coaches and administrators and less spending on stadium additions and fancy weight rooms. It also likely would require the cutting of some non-revenue sports as departments adjust to decreased revenue. This wouldn't be a sudden change. The appeals process would take years.

Answer is share revenue with the players.  So half the B1G athletic budgets go to the players (nice way of saying they are professional players).

How can the states not comply with this?  If O'Bannon wins it is the law that they have to share revenues with players.  It is not voluntary.

So, if you want a football team, either share revenues with the players or have no revenues (beyond ticket sales and basic TV rights) which means the athletic departments at places like Michigan are running at a massive loss.

If the courts insist on universities sharing TV revenue with athletes, I see state universities not complying.  They don't have to comply, they can just be sued for not complying (and rightfully so).  If the athletes sue, the state universities very well will claim sovereign immunity.

I can see if I can find it, but this is the strategy by some of the biggest state schools in regards to technology rights.  There is a recorded (and used to be freely available online) presentation of the head of intellectual property for a large state institution, explaining that hey sell IP rights and sign do not compete clauses.  They then inform their researchers (whose careers depend on extending the research) to ignore the do not compete clause, because if sued later they will claim sovereign immunity. 

I envision this same state institution (major sports player) to take the same tactic for sports.  Again, I don't think the O'bannon case will lead down this path.

[Tugg Speedman]

If the courts insist on universities sharing TV revenue with athletes, I see state universities not complying.  They don't have to comply, they can just be sued for not complying (and rightfully so).  If the athletes sue, the state universities very well will claim sovereign immunity.

I can see if I can find it, but this is the strategy by some of the biggest state schools in regards to technology rights.  There is a recorded (and used to be freely available online) presentation of the head of intellectual property for a large state institution, explaining that hey sell IP rights and sign do not compete clauses.  They then inform their researchers (whose careers depend on extending the research) to ignore the do not compete clause, because if sued later they will claim sovereign immunity. 

I envision this same state institution (major sports player) to take the same tactic for sports.  Again, I don't think the O'bannon case will lead down this path.

Once the way to pay athletes has been cleared, lesser athletic schools with resources will use payments to make their program better.

So if Michigan and the B1G want to be high and mighty and keep all the revenues and the status quo, then eastern Michigan, central Michigan and/or the MVC will offer to players money, decent money.  The B1G will not survive this.

I also have no doubt the super-competitive cheaters of the SEC will have an arms race in out bidding each other for top talent.  Those that refuse to pay and claim sovereign immunity might as well cancel their programs.  It would be a suicide pact.

[Galway Eagle]

Once the way to pay athletes has been cleared, lesser athletic schools with resources will use payments to make their program better.

So if Michigan and the B1G want to be high and mighty and keep all the revenues and the status quo, then eastern Michigan, central Michigan and/or the MVC will offer to players money, decent money.  The B1G will not survive this.

I also have no doubt the super-competitive cheaters of the SEC will have an arms race in out bidding each other for top talent.  Those that refuse to pay and claim sovereign immunity might as well cancel their programs.  It would be a suicide pact.

Either that or the state is suddenly going to pull some funding for certain schools. 

[Tugg Speedman]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9560094/texas-longhorns-again-top-merchandise-sales-list

Texas leads in merchandise royalties

For the eighth straight year, the University of Texas collected the most royalties of any college or university represented by the Collegiate Licensing Company, whose clients include all the major schools except Ohio State, Michigan State, University of Southern California and Oregon.

SEC schools dominated the top 10 in royalty rankings released by the company on Monday.

The University of Alabama came in second, followed by Kentucky (5), LSU (6), Florida (7), Georgia (8) and Arkansas (10), which broke the top 10 for the first time. Notre Dame (3), University of Michigan (4) and UNC (9) rounded out the top 10.

The list, which represented royalties on the $4.6 billion annual college merchandise business, reflects money collected by schools on sales of gear from July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013.

Schools that saw a rise in the royalty rankings include Notre Dame, which went from ninth last season to third after playing in the BCS title game.

Texas A&M, thanks in part to an 11-2 season in its first year in the SEC and quarterback Johnny Manziel winning the Heisman Trophy, jumped from No. 19 to No. 12 over the past year, and University of Louisville moved from No. 32 last year to No. 25 thanks to the success of its championship men's basketball licensing program.

The biggest slide in merchandise royalties was Penn State, likely due to the Jerry Sandusky scandal. Penn State dropped from 10 to 12 last year and fell seven more spots this year to No. 19.

Nike was the No. 1 apparel licensee among college teams, while EA Sports, whose college game is the subject of two current lawsuits brought by former players, was the top non-apparel licensee. Although the NCAA recently announced it would take its name off the game, CLC says it will continue to license the school logos for future games.

CLC is an affiliate of IMG College, which is owned by sports conglomerate IMG.

[forgetful]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9560094/texas-longhorns-again-top-merchandise-sales-list

Texas leads in merchandise royalties

For the eighth straight year, the University of Texas collected the most royalties of any college or university represented by the Collegiate Licensing Company, whose clients include all the major schools except Ohio State, Michigan State, University of Southern California and Oregon.

SEC schools dominated the top 10 in royalty rankings released by the company on Monday.

The University of Alabama came in second, followed by Kentucky (5), LSU (6), Florida (7), Georgia (8) and Arkansas (10), which broke the top 10 for the first time. Notre Dame (3), University of Michigan (4) and UNC (9) rounded out the top 10.

The list, which represented royalties on the $4.6 billion annual college merchandise business, reflects money collected by schools on sales of gear from July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013.

Schools that saw a rise in the royalty rankings include Notre Dame, which went from ninth last season to third after playing in the BCS title game.

Texas A&M, thanks in part to an 11-2 season in its first year in the SEC and quarterback Johnny Manziel winning the Heisman Trophy, jumped from No. 19 to No. 12 over the past year, and University of Louisville moved from No. 32 last year to No. 25 thanks to the success of its championship men's basketball licensing program.

The biggest slide in merchandise royalties was Penn State, likely due to the Jerry Sandusky scandal. Penn State dropped from 10 to 12 last year and fell seven more spots this year to No. 19.

Nike was the No. 1 apparel licensee among college teams, while EA Sports, whose college game is the subject of two current lawsuits brought by former players, was the top non-apparel licensee. Although the NCAA recently announced it would take its name off the game, CLC says it will continue to license the school logos for future games.

CLC is an affiliate of IMG College, which is owned by sports conglomerate IMG.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the O'bannon case.  Am I entitled to royalties for the apparel of every university I attended for the recognition I brought to the University.  If so, then every student is entitled to royalties.  And if every student is entitled to royalties, what is the difference between cutting them all a check and jacking up the tuitions vs. just using that money to reinvest in the University as a whole.

[Tugg Speedman]

I'm not sure what this has to do with the O'bannon case.  Am I entitled to royalties for the apparel of every university I attended for the recognition I brought to the University.  If so, then every student is entitled to royalties.  And if every student is entitled to royalties, what is the difference between cutting them all a check and jacking up the tuitions vs. just using that money to reinvest in the University as a whole.

See the last highlighted part ... The biggest source of non-apparel royalty income is EA sports' licensing agreements.  The story mentions two lawsuits against EA sports.  One is O'Bannon.

[forgetful]

See the last highlighted part ... The biggest source of non-apparel royalty income is EA sports' licensing agreements.  The story mentions two lawsuits against EA sports.  One is O'Bannon.

The athletes have no claim to any income generated from University logos, I disagree with the claim to rights to their likeness, but at least understand the argument.

[Galway Eagle]

The athletes have no claim to any income generated from University logos, I disagree with the claim to rights to their likeness, but at least understand the argument.

Out of curiosity could you explain your disagreement? I mean lets say where you work makes a cartoon and uses a character that has all of your distinguishing features, your stereotypical clothes, etc and they make millions off of it.  Are you going to say that you wouldn't feel obligated to any of that money?

[forgetful]

Out of curiosity could you explain your disagreement? I mean lets say where you work makes a cartoon and uses a character that has all of your distinguishing features, your stereotypical clothes, etc and they make millions off of it.  Are you going to say that you wouldn't feel obligated to any of that money?

First, no I would not feel obligated to any of that money.  I would have done nothing to earn it, the individual that made the cartoon in a manner that successfully drew in an audience that was willing to pay money for their product did everything, I was merely a subject of their creative endeavor.  Call me strange, but in that instance I did nothing to earn any proceeds and would not expect a dime. 

Just for the record, Universities have used my image in advertisements without my permission.  I have never and would never seek compensation for these instances.

As to why I disagree however, they signed documents granting their rights to the University.  In my opinion, as that is part of the NCAA student bylaws, they have relinquished their rights.  We'll let the courts iron out the details as I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a legal expert.  My legal opinion isn't worth diddley.

[Tugg Speedman]

The athletes have no claim to any income generated from University logos, I disagree with the claim to rights to their likeness, but at least understand the argument.

EA sports uses the athletes likeness in its video games.  The athletes get nothing and the universities gets tens of millions in royalty income.

[forgetful]

EA sports uses the athletes likeness in its video games.  The athletes get nothing and the universities gets tens of millions in royalty income.

Your article clearly states that "CLC says it will continue to license the school logos for future games".

But regardless, like I said above, I don't think they have a right to be paid for a cartoon appearance of themselves in a video game that they had no part in creating.

[The Equalizer]

EA sports uses the athletes likeness in its video games.  The athletes get nothing and the universities gets tens of millions in royalty income.

Apparently a 4-year full ride adademic scholarship plus room & board is the new definition of "nothing."

[Tugg Speedman]

Your article clearly states that "CLC says it will continue to license the school logos for future games".

But regardless, like I said above, I don't think they have a right to be paid for a cartoon appearance of themselves in a video game that they had no part in creating.

Here is the cover of the EA Sports NCAA 14 that was released July 9.

Denard Robinson got nothing for this.  Michigan is getting paid for this cover.

You think this is fair?

[Galway Eagle]

Your article clearly states that "CLC says it will continue to license the school logos for future games".

But regardless, like I said above, I don't think they have a right to be paid for a cartoon appearance of themselves in a video game that they had no part in creating.

I don't quite understand your reasoning.  I mean according to law your likeness is protected and if someone doesn't have permission to use it and is making money using your likeness because your famous or whatnot then it would be considered you helping them make that money which you are then owed a portion of because they are using your fame to make that money.  

[Tugg Speedman]

Apparently a 4-year full ride adademic scholarship plus room & board is the new definition of "nothing."

free ride at the school should not include selling a players image for money and giving him nothing.  See Denard Robinson in the post above.

[Galway Eagle]

Here is the cover of the EA Sports NCAA 14 that was released July 9.

Denard Robinson got nothing for this.  Michigan is getting paid for this cover.

You think this is fair?

He's going to say no because Denard Robinson didn't help create the game.  

[Galway Eagle]

Apparently a 4-year full ride adademic scholarship plus room & board is the new definition of "nothing."

There should be an estimated value of the payments for say the video game added to the estimated value that the players bring in for playing ball minus room, food, books and tuition.  That's what players should get which would be just like them paying their way but still getting their fair cut of what they bring to the school. 

[Tugg Speedman]

He's going to say no because Denard Robinson didn't help create the game.  

By his logic, Michael Jordan should get nothing for pitching Haines underwear as it is the garment workers that "created them."

[Galway Eagle]

Forgetful watch this video this is what college hoops 2k13 looks like you're going to tell me that even though the game used names, numbers, and likeness that it's ok?  (gotta get through the intro which is like 25seconds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCBXYxsOI7w

[Tugg Speedman]

There should be an estimated value of the payments for say the video game added to the estimated value that the players bring in for playing ball minus room, food, books and tuition.  That's what players should get which would be just like them paying their way but still getting their fair cut of what they bring to the school.  

As a benchmark ... the Lions Matthew Stafford signed a new contract this offseason:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000216954/article/matthew-stafford-detroit-lions-reach-new-contract

NFL.com's Albert Breer, per two sources involved in the negotiations, reported Tuesday that the total value of the three-year extension for Stafford will be $53 million, putting his five-year haul at $76.5 million. Stafford will receive $41.5 million guaranteed and, according to ProFootballTalk.com, a $27.5 million signing bonus. The totals make sense. The extension pays Stafford nearly $18 million on average per season. That's roughly the same per-year average as Tony Romo. Not coincidentally, Stafford and Romo share the same agent.

So Stafford made about $60 million over four years AND he keeps the rights to his image and sells and makes a significant amount of money off it.

Now, if we assume that Denard Robinson and Michigan are MORE marketable than Stafford and the Lions, I would put Robinson's worth to Michigan, over his four year career, at $80 to $100 million.  Less $250,000 for four years of room and board, Michigan should pay home $79.75 to $99.75 million if they wanted to compensate him fairly.

[Tugg Speedman]

Forgetful watch this video this is what college hoops 2k13 looks like you're going to tell me that even though the game used names, numbers, and likeness that it's ok?  (gotta get through the intro which is like 25seconds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCBXYxsOI7w

Excellent find! 

MU keeps all the royalties off this and the players get zero.

If O'Bannon wins as a class action, all the players on last year's team will be owed money because of this game.