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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT