Home
Madden NFL 25 News Post


This wasn't the 25th Anniversary Electronic Arts Execs had planned on.

After three days of deliberations, a jury in the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Robin Antonick, the original designer and developer of Madden NFL Football awarding him a figure in the range of $11 million per year.

This victory also gives Antonick the ability to pursue the same claims against EA for Madden NFL games released after 1996.

In the case, Antonick Alleges EA signed a series of publishing and development contracts with him which culminated in a 1986 agreement which requires EA to pay Antonick royalties on any derivative works of the original EA Madden game.

“This is a tremendous victory,” said Rob Carey, partner at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and one of Antonick’s attorneys. “In many ways, this trial was a test of each party’s version of events. The jury uniformly rejected the idea that this game was developed without Robin’s work. It is, if nothing, a good omen for the next phase of the litigation.”

If that law firm sounds familiar, they are also the firm in charge of the Ed O'Bannon suit which alleges EA and the NCAA owe student athletes royalties for use of their licenses and is the reason the NCAA and EA are no longer business partners.

The next phase of the trial will be held to determine if they owe Antonick royalties for all Madden games released since 1997, a sum which could be far bigger than this one.

Game: Madden NFL 25Reader Score: 4.5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 53 - View All
Madden NFL 25 Videos
Member Comments
# 1 TheBuddyHobbs @ 07/23/13 10:20 PM
The mighty have fallen.
 
# 2 cream6 @ 07/23/13 10:22 PM
Wow!!! Ed O'Bannon could win as well.
 
# 3 ImmovableObject @ 07/23/13 10:37 PM
Good for him!

Sadly, I don't see EA changing any of their practices or philosophies.

Shame on EA for not give this guy his due.
 
# 4 simeoncam50 @ 07/24/13 01:10 AM
So does this mean Ea Madden football has to start from scratch?
 
# 5 B1gg Randall @ 07/24/13 03:25 AM
Wow!!! He's getting paid.
 
# 6 ubernoob @ 07/24/13 03:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simeoncam50
So does this mean Ea Madden football has to start from scratch?
No, it just means they have to pay more in royalties now.
 
# 7 Aggies67 @ 07/24/13 09:21 AM
# 5 footballfan41, I work for myself so I do "know what it's like". But people don't have to own their own business or be in business for themselves in order to understand the basic concept that if you sign papers stating that you will pay someone royalties, you are under legal and moral obligation t do so.
 
# 8 Only1LT @ 07/24/13 10:06 AM
If he sues for games made after 1996, and wins, will people, then, stop giving me a hard time when I say that Madden has changed very little since it's inception...?
 
# 9 bigbob @ 07/24/13 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profit89
I'll say it again. EA are wasting their money on lincenses. Create a game with a deep editor and embrace mods. Let the community take care of the rest. When you try to control everything for the almighty dollar it's only a matter of time before you get nailed,
They aren't wasting the money, though.

More people will not buy the game because of no real NFL teams, no real NFL players than will buy it with all the modding in the World.

They're making a hell of a lot more money this way because than they can change a couple things here and there, make the game a tiny bit better and everyone will still buy it the next year because they want the most up-to-date rosters available and unfortunately, you have to pay $60 a year for that.
 
# 10 ubernoob @ 07/24/13 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseySuave4
those that say Keller or O'Bannon are d-bags, do you also realize that Bill Russell is also a member of this lawsuit? So is he a money grubbing d-bag? This was eventually going to happen, there has been too much discussion about paying players for it not to come up. Players are no longer just letting it slide how schools and companies are making so much money off of them yet they can't earn extra income.
They still can't pay the players. Way too much of a legal can of worms to open up.
 
# 11 kehlis @ 07/24/13 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Only1LT
If he sues for games made after 1996, and wins, will people, then, stop giving me a hard time when I say that Madden has changed very little since it's inception...?
I don't necessarily disagree with your assertation but this has nothing to do with whether or not the game has changed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
 
# 12 Gotmadskillzson @ 07/24/13 02:31 PM
11 million to EA would be like 11 dollars to your average person. They really not going to feel it.
 
# 13 GiantBlue76 @ 07/24/13 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotmadskillzson
11 million to EA would be like 11 dollars to your average person. They really not going to feel it.
didn't EA have issues paying their obligated amount to the NFLPA?
 
# 14 Gotmadskillzson @ 07/24/13 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantBlue76
didn't EA have issues paying their obligated amount to the NFLPA?
The only issue was EA didn't want to pay, it wasn't that they didn't have the money. EA makes billions of dollars a year off all their games combined. Hell they made over 300 million off of FIFA Ultimate Team alone.

EA isn't hurting for money.
 
# 15 GiantBlue76 @ 07/24/13 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotmadskillzson
The only issue was EA didn't want to pay, it wasn't that they didn't have the money. EA makes billions of dollars a year off all their games combined. Hell they made over 300 million off of FIFA Ultimate Team alone.

EA isn't hurting for money.

No not that, there was another article that a guy pointed me to, but I couldn't read it because it required a subscription. It was separate from the discount they asked for during the pending strike.
 
# 16 roadman @ 07/24/13 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantBlue76
No not that, there was another article that a guy pointed me to, but I couldn't read it because it required a subscription. It was separate from the discount they asked for during the pending strike.
Is this what you are referring to?

Appears it's all based on revenue from EA.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J...nts/NFLPA.aspx
 
# 17 GiantBlue76 @ 07/24/13 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadman
Is this what you are referring to?

Appears it's all based on revenue from EA.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J...nts/NFLPA.aspx
Yes Road, that's the one. I was never actually able to read the article, so I'm not claiming to be correct on this one. Can you summarize?
 
# 18 roadman @ 07/24/13 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantBlue76
Yes Road, that's the one. I was never actually able to read the article, so I'm not claiming to be correct on this one. Can you summarize?
Article states they aren't sure why the step drop of profits from the NFLPA. It mentions EA is the main supplier of those profits. Not sure if it's from the strike season as the NFLPA asked for upfront money.

The last time the NFLPA reported commercial revenue of less than $100 million for a full year was 2005.

The prevailing reason for the decline: Revenue from Electronic Arts in the most recent 12 months was $2.155 million. Between 2006 and 2011, the NFLPA’s EA revenue averaged $32 million, far and away the biggest sponsor or licensee in those years, often by two- to threefold.

For the eight months covered under the 2012 NFLPA filing, EA income came in at less than $1 million to the NFLPA. So combining that total with the 2013 amount, the NFLPA for a 20-month period brought in less than $3 million from its historically top licensee.

t is possible the NFLPA took an upfront payment from EA during the lockout period of March 12-July 25, 2011, to help sustain the players during their battle with the owners. There are no indications the economics of EA sales of its football video games have changed in any way to suggest such a steep drop in royalties.

Both parties wouln't comment, so, the article is specualating as to why the drop off in payoff from EA to NFLPA.
 
# 19 cadalyst17 @ 07/25/13 08:54 AM
Now he should repay all our money for the crappy games we have bought : )
 
# 20 Shadymamba @ 07/25/13 08:00 PM
I mean if he was the "originator" and the new guys wanted him gone - it's only right that he get his cut, and for them not too in the past wow - well good for him then!!!! - we wonder how the big companies stay big - cutting corners
 

« Previous12Next »

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.