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 took Bruce's comments to highlight a glaring issue when it comes to a state's image, and therefore its overall branding. An example is Michigan vs. Indiana. Michigan has done an excellent job of following through on its branding strategy around "Pure Michigan", even down to the detail of the rest stops. Since a state's branding is often targeted to visitors, it makes sense that rest stops, being that point of first impression, should be significant. It is clear that Indiana doesn't care as much about the impression it gives visitors even though our branding as the Crossroads of America does place importance on travel. Bruce's point is quite logical and accurate.

  2. I appreciated the article. I guess I have become so accustomed to making my "pit stops" at places where I can ALSO get gasoline and something hot to eat, that I hardly even notice public rest stops anymore. That said, I do concur with the rationale that our rest stops (if we are to have them at all) can and should be both fiscally-responsible AND designed to make a positive impression about our state.

  3. I don't know about the rest of you but I only stop at these places for one reason, and it's not to picnic. I move trucks for dealers and have been to rest areas in most all 48 lower states. Some of ours need upgrading no doubt. Many states rest areas are much worse than ours. In the rest area on I-70 just past Richmond truckers have to hike about a quarter of a mile. When I stop I;m generally in a bit of a hurry. Convenience,not beauty, is a primary concern.

  4. Community Hospital is the only system to not have layoffs? That is not true. Because I was one of the people who was laid off from East. And all of the LPN's have been laid off. Just because their layoffs were not announced or done all together does not mean people did not lose their jobs. They cherry-picked people from departments one by one. But you add them all up and it's several hundred. And East has had a dramatic drop I in patient beds from 800 to around 125. I know because I worked there for 30 years.

  5. I have obtained my 6 gallon badge for my donation of A Positive blood. I'm sorry to hear that my donation was nothing but a profit center for the Indiana Blood Center.

ADVERTISEMENT