Landmark NCAA player-likeness case set to get underway

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ed O’Bannon, the college basketball player of the year in 1995, said he isn’t suing the National Collegiate Athletic Association to get rich. It’s about fairness.

The former University of California-Los Angeles forward is challenging the right of college sports’ governing body, conferences and schools to keep proceeds from selling the rights to athletes’ likenesses to be used in such things as TV broadcasts, video games and clothes.

The plaintiffs say the case, which heads to court Thursday, may reduce the $6.4 billion in annual revenue that universities get from athletics by as much as 50 percent.

“It’s a legitimate threat to the NCAA,” said Michael McCann, a law professor and director of the sports and entertainment law institute at the University of New Hampshire. “The antitrust claims have logic behind them, namely that there are industry actors — the NCAA, college conferences, video game publishers — who have clearly made money off the images and likenesses of players. Normally in law we are compensated” for that.

A victory for O’Bannon, 40, might destroy the model that has developed since Rutgers College defeated what is now Princeton University in the first college football game 144 years ago. Schools would have to share revenue with athletes, then possibly drop money-losing sports to offset the cost. The richest football and basketball teams probably would form superconferences rich enough to play by the new rules, Duke University law professor Paul Haagen said in an interview.

“It is difficult to see how the organization could survive in anything like its current form were it to suffer a major loss in this case,” Haagen said.

Class hearing

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland is scheduled to hear lawyers argue whether O’Bannon’s suit, now combined with a lawsuit filed by former Arizona State University quarterback Sam Keller, should become a class action, allowing the plaintiffs’ attorneys to sue on behalf of all college football and basketball players.

The antitrust plaintiffs are asking to represent and seek damages for all former student athletes in the United States who competed in Division I basketball or NCAA football’s top echelon and whose images or names have been included in game footage or video games since July 2005. In their request for a court order restricting NCAA actions, the lawyers seek to represent all current and former college athletes whose images or names may be or have been included game footage or video games after they stopped being NCAA athletes.

Signed agreement

College athletes are required to sign an agreement relinquishing their rights to profit from their images, including after they graduate and are no longer subject to NCAA rules, lawyers for O’Bannon and Keller say. The agreement is a product of the NCAA’s effort to deprive them of compensation for use of their images, so it’s unenforceable, the lawyers said in court filings.

The action began almost four years ago when O’Bannon sued the NCAA and its licensing company, alleging in a complaint that they agreed to block him and other former college athletes from getting paid for their likenesses in Electronic Arts Inc. sports video games after they left college. O’Bannon’s case was combined with Keller’s, who sued the NCAA and Electronic Arts for using his likeness in video games without his permission.

The NCAA said its agreements with athletes are legal and binding, NCAA attorney Donald Remy said in an interview.

Non-revenue sports

Wake Forest University President Nathan Hatch, who chairs the NCAA Division I board, has said that if revenue had to be shared with athletes, his school probably would have to eliminate some non-revenue sports, a category that includes everything except football and men’s basketball at most schools, to cut costs.

“The thing that might be crippling is the issue that amateurism is now a sham; a 19th-century ideal for a certain kind of athletic competition that the court said doesn’t exist anymore,” Haagen said.

O’Bannon said comments like Hatch’s are scare tactics. “There are billions of dollars being made,” he said. “There is enough to go around.”

The Indianapolis-based NCAA’s revenue for 2011-12 was $871.6 million, according to the governing body. NCAA managing director of research Todd Petr said schools spent $11.7 billion on intercollegiate sports, almost twice what they brought in, and only 23 athletic departments make money on their programs, according to court filings in the case.

Michael Hausfeld, attorney for the plaintiffs, said it’s time to end the arcane notion of amateurism in college athletes. The athletes spend more time in practice than they do in class, he said.

Commercial enterprise

“Intercollegiate athletics is not amateur at all, it’s a commercial enterprise to make money, and as much as possible,” Hausfeld said. “I think the public understands that these are hybrids. You can call them semi-pros, pre-professionals, but not amateurs.”

A ruling by Wilken in O’Bannon’s and Keller’s favor would expand the number of plaintiffs to include tens of thousands of athletes whose interests would be represented, and who could share in damages without having to file individual lawsuits.

McCann, of the University of New Hampshire, said plaintiffs claims against the NCAA have never been litigated.

“This isn’t about whether college players should be paid,” he said in a telephone interview. “It’s about their image and likenesses, not their labor.”

NCAA’s confidence

Remy, the NCAA attorney, said he is confident that the governing body for college sports will win.

“The facts and the law are on the side of the NCAA and its member institutions, so I am not concerned that the doomsday scenario that some paint as a product of this litigation ultimately will come to fruition,” he said.

Roger Noll, a retired economics professor at Stanford University hired by the plaintiffs’ attorneys to calculate damages, estimated that athletes should receive 50 percent of revenue from licenses that use their images.

Remy said U.S. law forbids college athletes from being paid based on the 1984 Supreme Court decision about football television rights. The court ruled 7-2 in a lawsuit brought by NCAA against the University of Oklahoma that the NCAA and its member universities market “competition itself.”

“In order to preserve the character and quality of the product, athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court’s majority. “The NCAA play a vital role in enabling college football to preserve its character, and as a result enables a product to be marketed which might otherwise be unavailable.”


Though a loss might have major ramifications for the NCAA, McCann said college sports would survive.

If money were placed in a fund to pay players for licensing their images, and the money is paid after they graduate, that’s different than paying them a salary.

“I don’t know what an appropriate definition for amateurism is — at least in today’s market,” McCann said. “What is amateurism in an era where coaches are paid millions of dollars, where television contracts for amateur games are worth billions of dollars?

‘‘If players are compensated, I’m of the view that college sports would continue. It would make it more expensive for schools.’’

Selling cars

O’Bannon, meanwhile, is working as a car salesman at Findlay Toyota in Henderson, Nev. After winning the John Wooden Award in 1995 as college basketball’s most outstanding player, he was selected by the New Jersey Nets with the ninth pick in the National Basketball Association draft and signed a $3.9 million contract. He averaged 5 points and 2.5 rebounds during two seasons in the NBA. He played in Europe, then went back to UCLA to get his degree.

He insists he isn’t trying to get rich with his lawsuit. video games and clothes.

‘‘It had nothing to do with me actually picking up a check or getting paid,” he said from his office at the car dealership. “I thought it was illegal to use one’s likeness without a person’s permission or compensation."


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Socialized medicine works great for white people in Scandanavia. It works well in Costa Rica for a population that is partly white and partly mestizo. I don't really see Obamacare as something aimed against whites. I think that is a Republican canard designed to elicit support from white people for republican candidates who don't care about them any more than democrats care about the non-whites they pander to with their phony maneuvers. But what is different between Costa Rica nd the Scandanavian nations on one hand and the US on the other? SIZE. Maybe the US is just too damn big. Maybe it just needs to be divided into smaller self governing pieces like when the old Holy Roman Empire was dismantled. Maybe we are always trying the same set of solutions for different kinds of people as if we were all the same. Oh-- I know-- that is liberal dogma, that we are all the same. Which is the most idiotic American notion going right back to the propaganda of 1776. All men are different and their differences are myriad and that which is different is not equal. The state which pretends men are all the same is going to force men to be the same. That is what America does here, that is what we do in our stupid overseas wars, that is how we destroy true diversity and true difference, and we are all as different groups of folks, feeling the pains of how capitalism is grinding us down into equally insignificant proletarian microconsumers with no other identity whether we like it or not. And the Marxists had this much right about the War of Independence: it was fundamentally a war of capitalist against feudal systems. America has been about big money since day one and whatever gets in the way is crushed. Health care is just another market and Obamacare, to the extent that it Rationalizes and makes more uniform a market which should actually be really different in nature and delivery from place to place-- well that will serve the interests of the biggest capitalist stakeholders in health care which is not Walmart for Gosh Sakes it is the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. CUI BONO Obamacare? The insurance industry. So republicans drop the delusion pro capitalist scales from your eyes this has almost nothing to do with race or "socialism" it has to do mostly with what the INSURANCE INDUSTRY wants to have happen in order to make their lives and profits easier.

  2. Read the article - the reason they can't justify staying is they have too many medicare/medicaid patients and the re-imbursements for transporting these patient is so low.

  3. I would not vote for Bayh if he did run. I also wouldn't vote for Pence. My guess is that Bayh does not have the stomach to oppose persons on the far left or far right. Also, outside of capitalizing on his time as U. S. Senator (and his wife's time as a board member to several companies) I don't know if he is willing to fight for anything. If people who claim to be in the middle walk away from fights with the right and left wing, what are we left with? Extremes. It's probably best for Bayh if he does not have the stomach for the fight but the result is no middle ground.

  4. JK - I meant that the results don't ring true. I also questioned the 10-year-old study because so much in the "health care system" has changed since the study was made. Moreover, it was hard to get to any overall conclusion or observation with the article. But....don't be defensive given my comments; I still think you do the best job of any journalist in the area shedding light and insight on important health care issues.

  5. Probably a good idea he doesn't run. I for one do not want someone who lives in VIRGINIA to be the governor. He gave it some thought, but he likes Virginia too much. What a name I cannot say on this site! The way these people think and operate amuses me.