Byrne: Alabama Cannot Become Complacent Rule Change Could Help Academies' Recruiting CFP Committee Adds Beamer, Smith, Howard Manning Serving On Tennessee AD Search Committee Alabama Praised For Hiring Greg Byrne As AD Fulmer A Candidate For Tennessee AD? Cal Fans Blame Poor Ticket Sales On Late Games Length Of College Football Game Up From '10 Social Company SM2 Training College Athletes Greg Byrne To Be Next Alabama AD
SBD/June 10, 2014/Colleges
O'Bannon Takes The Stand As NCAA Antitrust Trial Begins; Keller-EA Suit Settled
Published June 10, 2014
O'BANNON EXPLAINS: In L.A., Romney & Wharton in a front-page piece note O'Bannon "acknowledged on the stand that he had said in a 2011 deposition that current student-athletes are amateurs but said he now feels differently." O'Bannon: "I'm not talking, you know ... X certain amount. That's for someone else to figure out. But with the amount of money that they are bringing in, I think that they should be compensated" (L.A. TIMES, 6/10). O'Bannon afterward said that he "erred in his testimony when he said that kids appearing in television broadcasts of the Little League World Series deserve a cut of the associated media revenues." O'Bannon: "I probably should have thought a little bit before saying that. Little Leaguers getting paid? Probably not" (ESPN.com, 6/9). CBSSPORTS.com's Jon Solomon wrote the "rhetoric will be over the top at times." The courtroom yesterday "actually produced a scene" in which an NCAA attorney "described NCAA violator Jim Harrick as a valued mentor to O'Bannon in order to demonstrate the numerous ways athletes benefit from being in college" (CBSSPORTS.com, 6/9).
COMING TO TERMS: The NCAA yesterday said that it "reached a settlement" to pay $20M to "current and former college athletes who sued over the use of their likenesses in video games." In N.Y., Eder & Strauss note if "approved by the judge, the resolution of the first case," filed by former Arizona State QB Sam Keller, could "represent a turning point for the NCAA as it confronts a growing group of critics who believe that football players and men’s college basketball players should get a larger share of the revenue from big-time college sports." The players who would "most likely receive payments would be men’s basketball and football players who were on the rosters of certain teams when the video games were sold." That could "include a number of current players," but the NCAA said that there would be a “'blanket eligibility' waiver, so the players and their colleges would not be punished for receiving payments" (N.Y. TIMES, 6/10). USA TODAY's Steve Berkowitz reports the proposed deal was worth $20M "on top of the recently filed" $40M proposed settlement of claims against EA and CLC. Those claims "stemmed from four separate lawsuits, including a part of the O'Bannon case." Keller said, "It's a neat feeling. It's a sense of accomplishment, this becoming the first time the NCAA is paying out for a product on the field. This is going to be the first of many dominoes to fall. It's an exciting time. The whole goal in (these lawsuits) is to change the landscape -- to do what's fair and right. And I wish (the O'Bannon plaintiffs) the best of luck" (USA TODAY, 6/10).
SETTLEMENT'S IMPACT: SI.com's Michael McCann wrote at "first glance, the NCAA's settlements should have no direct bearing on the O'Bannon trial." O'Bannon's legal arguments concerning video games "fall under antitrust law rather than right of publicity law." O'Bannon "charges the NCAA and its members formed an anti-competitive cartel to deprive players of an opportunity to license themselves in games and other properties." But Keller "charges the NCAA and its members violated right of publicity law by misappropriating players' images and likenesses in video games." Keller settling with the NCAA would "remove the right of publicity claim, but not the antitrust claim." O'Bannon "more importantly ... is seeking fundamental change to NCAA amateurism rules so that current and former Division I football and men's basketball players can negotiate deals for their names, images and likenesses." He would "obtain this change only through an injunction ordered by Wilken," which would "compel the NCAA to change its rules or risk contempt of court charges." O'Bannon's trial is "about the future, not about compensation for past wrongs" (SI.com, 6/9).