IBJNews

Lawsuit could bring NCAA financials to light

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The NCAA on Monday lost its battle to dismiss a class-action lawsuit led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon that could have far-reaching ramifications on the not-for-profit association’s business practices.

O’Bannon seeks to be compensated for the use of his name and likeness in NCAA officially licensed products.

Judge Claudia Wilken, presiding over a district court in San Francisco, denied the NCAA’s dismissal motion. That means the NCAA’s licensing contracts—which contain sensitive financial information—could become public as O'Bannon's legal team proceeds with the discovery process.
 
Sports business and legal experts think the case will be followed by members of Congress interested in the NCAA’s tax-exempt status. The NCAA’s licensed business has a value estimated by sports marketers at $4 billion.

The NCAA argued O’Bannon and other college athletes forfeited their commercial rights when they signed a form permitting the organization to use their images to promote NCAA activities.

“The court’s … rulings at this preliminary stage of the cases do not diminish the NCAA’s confidence that we will ultimately prevail on all of the claims,” said a statement from the NCAA.

Milt Thompson, an attorney and president of an Indianapolis-based sports marketing firm, said the NCAA may be facing an uphill battle.

“Clearly, the lower court thinks the NCAA has a case against it,” Thompson said. “It’s my view that if you’re exploiting someone’s image, and they’re not getting a royalty, that doesn’t seem right. I’m a firm believer that those that help generate revenue should share in that revenue.”

In July, O’Bannon filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA, stating former college athletes should be compensated for the use of their images and likenesses in television ads, video games and on apparel.

O'Bannon, 37, who led UCLA to the 1995 NCAA national championship, was particularly annoyed by the use of his likeness in a video game licensed by the NCAA without his permission.

“They literally played me on a video game,” he told Yahoo Sports. “You could play the ’95 (UCLA) Bruins. It didn’t have my name, but it had my number, left-handed, it looked like me. It was everything but the name. My friend kind of looked at me and said, ‘You know what’s sad about this whole thing? You’re not getting paid for it.’ I was just like, ‘Wow, you’re right.’ It just kind of weighed on me.”

This isn't the first time that the NCAA has been sued by a former player. Sam Keller, 25, filed a lawsuit against the organization last year for using his likeness as quarterback for the University of Nebraska.

Former Rutgers University quarterback Ryan Hart, 25, is also suing EA Sports—which produces NCAA-licensed video games—for using his image.

Judge Wilken combined O’Bannon’s case with Keller’s. O’Bannon’s attorney, Jon King, said in an email that he expects various players from different eras to be added to the class-action suit within a month.

King said in an email that he will soon begin taking depositions and collecting evidence to uncover financial information the NCAA has sought for years to hide from the public and current and former NCAA athletes.
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Difference between promotion and profit
    I don't know much about the particulars of this case, but I do know there is a difference between "promoting" a program or event and selling merchandise for a profit. The NCAA shouldn't be allowed to recreate a player's likeness without compensating them (especially if that player is no longer a part of the NCAA system).

    While NCAA athletes are compensated/rewarded for their participation with scholarships, and a very select few will ever be prolific enough to have this be an issue, the days of merely selling a team jersey with a popular player's number on it disappeared with the introduction of the digital/gaming age.
  • NCAA LAWSUIT
    I agree with Marv. There is a definitely a line that is crossed when the video game portrays his likeness. The coaches make BIG bucks off the shoe companies and the universities make BIG bucks off the players - but if someone buys an athlete a Big Mac and fries -- it's an NCAA violation! I'm a huge college basketball fan but some of the rules are absurd
  • NCAA Lawsuit
    I am supportive of Ed O'Bannon's lawsuit. The NCAA takes advantage of college players. These kids do not forfeit their names and images to the NCAA. The NCAA uses these talented athletes for their own benefit. The same can be said of colleges and many high schools. The idea of the student athlete is an oxymoron. I hope he wins.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am also a "vet" of several Cirque shows and this one left me flat. It didn't have the amount of acrobatic stunts as the others that I have seen. I am still glad that I went to it and look forward to the next one but I put Varekai as my least favorite.

  2. Looking at the two companies - in spite of their relative size to one another -- Ricker's image is (by all accounts) pretty solid and reputable. Their locations are clean, employees are friendly and the products they offer are reasonably priced. By contrast, BP locations are all over the place and their reputation is poor, especially when you consider this is the same "company" whose disastrous oil spill and their response was nothing short of irresponsible should tell you a lot. The fact you also have people who are experienced in franchising saying their system/strategy is flawed is a good indication that another "spill" has occurred and it's the AM-PM/Ricker's customers/company that are having to deal with it.

  3. Daniel Lilly - Glad to hear about your points and miles. Enjoy Wisconsin and Illinois. You don't care one whit about financial discipline, which is why you will blast the "GOP". Classic liberalism.

  4. Isn't the real reason the terrain? The planners under-estimated the undulating terrain, sink holes, karst features, etc. This portion of the route was flawed from the beginning.

  5. You thought no Indy was bad, how's no fans working out for you? THe IRl No direct competition and still no fans. Hey George Family, spend another billion dollars, that will fix it.

ADVERTISEMENT