IBJNews

NCAA to stop putting name, logo on video game

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hang on to NCAA Football 2014, all you video game fans. It will be a collector's edition.

The NCAA said Wednesday it will no longer allow Electronic Arts Inc. to use its logo starting next year. The move ends a lucrative business deal with the gaming industry giant and comes as the NCAA fights a lawsuit that says the governing body owes billions of dollars to former players for allowing their likenesses to be used for free.

The Indianapolis-based NCAA said it won't seek a new contract with EA Sports, which manufactures the popular game, beyond the current one that expires in June 2014. However, that won't stop EA Sports from producing a college football video game depicting powerhouse schools like Alabama, Ohio State and Oregon, and the Redwood City, Calif.-based company made that clear.

"EA Sports will continue to develop and publish college football games, but we will no longer include the NCAA names and marks," said Andrew Wilson, executive vice president. "Our relationship with the Collegiate Licensing Co. is strong and we are already working on a new game for next-generation consoles which will launch next year and feature the college teams, conferences and all the innovation fans expect from EA Sports."

The company reported $3.8 billion in net revenue during its last fiscal year and, aside from its NCAA Football franchise, is well known for Madden NFL, FIFA Soccer and other games.

EA Sports first began making an NCAA Football game in 1998 and it has generated more than $1.3 billion in sales in the U.S. alone, according to a spokesman for market tracking firm The NPD Group Inc. It wasn't known how much of what EA makes from NCAA Football goes back to the NCAA and its members in licensing deals.

Todd Mitchell, senior analyst with New York-based Brean Capital, LLC, said losing the NCAA brand isn't likely to hurt EA Sports. He estimated NCAA Football accounts for only about 5 percent of EA Sports' revenue, or about $125 million.

"It's nice to have the brand, but it's more about the characters," he said.

It could not immediately be determined exactly how much of what EA makes from NCAA football goes back to the NCAA and its members in licensing deals.

Analyst Colin Sebastian of R.W. Baird said EA Sports likely expected to lose its partnership with the NCAA.

"I'm sure they have thought about this because of this pending litigation and the worst case scenarios," Sebastian said by telephone from San Francisco. "I don't expect it to have a significant impact on their business."

NCAA Football allows participants to play as any major college football team, though unlike in its professional sports games, the names of players are not used. The similarities between the avatars in the game and actual college athletes are at the root of a legal fight that could alter the way the NCAA does business in the future.

The NCAA is in the midst of a long court battle that started with a lawsuit filed by former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon after he was shown a video game with an avatar playing for the Bruins that played a lot like him.

The anti-trust lawsuit also names EA and the Collegiate Licensing Company that handles trademark licensing for dozens of schools, the NCAA and various conferences. The suit has expanded to include several former athletes who claim the NCAA and EA Sports used their names and likenesses without compensation and demand the NCAA find a way to give players a cut of the billions of dollars earned from live broadcasts, memorabilia sales and video games.

"We are confident in our legal position regarding the use of our trademarks in video games," the NCAA said. "But given the current business climate and costs of litigation, we determined participating in this game is not in the best interests of the NCAA.

"The NCAA has never licensed the use of current student-athlete names, images or likenesses to EA. The NCAA has no involvement in licenses between EA and former student-athletes," it said in a statement.

Still, the NCAA said its members can seek arrangements with video game manufacturers if they wish.

"Member colleges and universities license their own trademarks and other intellectual property for the video game," the NCAA said. "They will have to independently decide whether to continue those business arrangements in the future."

Michael Hausfeld, the lead attorney on the O'Bannon case, said the NCAA cutting ties with EA could provide greater freedom for EA to make deals with conferences, schools and even players.

"No longer would EA have to pretend the avatars are not the likenesses of the real players," he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • no big deal
    EA sports simply needs to allow more customization options within the game. As long as they allow the ability to upload team logo images, names edits, player profile and attributes edits, they can still make a great playing game and the gaming community will undoubtedly create an official roster along with all the proper team edits ready for download within the week. Anymore, with the online community, the roster edits and attributes can be downloaded and are often much more accurate than what EA puts out. i can't see this being a big deal in the long run.

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 east side does have potential...and I have always thought Washington Scare should become an outlet mall. Anyone remember how popular Eastgate was? Well, Indy has no outlet malls, we have to go to Edinburgh for the deep discounts and I don't understand why. Jim is right. We need a few good eastsiders interested in actually making some noise and trying to change the commerce, culture and stereotypes of the East side. Irvington is very progressive and making great strides, why can't the far east side ride on their coat tails to make some changes?

  2. Boston.com has an article from 2010 where they talk about how Interactions moved to Massachusetts in the year prior. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/innoeco/2010/07/interactions_banks_63_million.html The article includes a link back to that Inside Indiana Business press release I linked to earlier, snarkily noting, "Guess this 2006 plan to create 200-plus new jobs in Indiana didn't exactly work out."

  3. I live on the east side and I have read all your comments. a local paper just did an article on Washington square mall with just as many comments and concerns. I am not sure if they are still around, but there was an east side coalition with good intentions to do good things on the east side. And there is a facebook post that called my eastside indy with many old members of the eastside who voice concerns about the east side of the city. We need to come together and not just complain and moan, but come up with actual concrete solutions, because what Dal said is very very true- the eastside could be a goldmine in the right hands. But if anyone is going damn, and change things, it is us eastside residents

  4. Please go back re-read your economics text book and the fine print on the February 2014 CBO report. A minimum wage increase has never resulted in a net job loss...

  5. The GOP at the Statehouse is more interested in PR to keep their majority, than using it to get anything good actually done. The State continues its downward spiral.

ADVERTISEMENT