Home
NCAA Football 14 News Post


The settlement total for EA and the CLC in their part of the college athlete likenesses lawsuits which brought an end to the NCAA Football series is valued at $40 million according to the NY Times.

The settlement affects 125,000 current and former college basketball and football players and ends up averaging just about $320 per player -- which is still too high given the presence of lawyers fees and such which would lower the total payout per player.

The total monetary number is actually quite a bit smaller than you'd expect, and much smaller than if the case had actually gone to trial. From a business standpoint, the $40 million itself was likely not necessarily a reason for axing NCAA Football. What we haven't heard yet are the other terms of the settlement, one of which could very well have been that EA Sports couldn't develop a college football game for x number of years.

We'll keep digging to see what we can find -- most likely additional details of the settlement will continue to leak out in the days and weeks to come.

Game: NCAA Football 14Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 52 - View All
NCAA Football 14 Videos
Member Comments
# 1 HenryClay1844 @ 09/27/13 02:30 PM
So they shut down the game because they were robbing the players of about one hundred dollars a year of payouts for their "likeness." Yup, this seems like something that has happened in America in 2013.
 
# 2 Dogslax41 @ 09/27/13 02:32 PM
EA and the CLC were never the real target. It may have started out as a money play for Obannon but the lawyers that jumped on the case did so to go after the NCAA and the TV money. My guess is that the structure of college athletics is going to change so much in the next 2-3 years a future video game is not off the table but the uncertainty of what player compensation is going to look like led EA to make the announcement that they did.
 
# 3 Dogslax41 @ 09/27/13 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryClay1844
So they shut down the game because they were robbing the players of about one hundred dollars a year of payouts for their "likeness." Yup, this seems like something that has happened in America in 2013.
It's not about robbing the players of money. It's about robbing them of the ability to market themselves for money.
 
# 4 BadAssHskr @ 09/27/13 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMChrisS
just about $320 per player









 
# 5 debauchlord @ 09/27/13 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogslax41
EA and the CLC were never the real target. It may have started out as a money play for Obannon but the lawyers that jumped on the case did so to go after the NCAA and the TV money. My guess is that the structure of college athletics is going to change so much in the next 2-3 years a future video game is not off the table but the uncertainty of what player compensation is going to look like led EA to make the announcement that they did.
My guess? Players will never get paid while in college. Never. The reason being is that because of Title IX, you will have to pay all players. Not necessarily equally, but pay them just the same. The value of a college education vastly trumps any sort of "earnings" a female soccer player brings in. Additionally, all college students are assessed an "athletic fee", which pays for gyms, stadiums, teams, etc. No way in hell am I subsidizing Bruiser McKneecaps to drink beer, get laid, and take Rocks for Jocks four times.

I think what will happen is that the NCAA will pull away from professional leagues, make a student athlete's "free ride" 100% dependent on their graduation (if they do not graduate in five years, they must pay the money back), and kids that do not want to go to college, can skip to the pros. The pros will have then be forced to develop a better minor league system, like baseball and hockey and soccer (I believe?).

Also, there will be a fund established by each individual school, which will pay the athlete, equally among ALL school athletes, a "residual", based on total athletic income for that school, dependent on graduation.

These changes are a long ways coming anyway, I am glad something as petty as 133.00 bucks per athlete is the catalyst to this. Time to put student back into student athlete.
 
# 6 JLoco11 @ 09/27/13 02:47 PM
O'Bannon and Keller should be able to afford a few copies of Their Greatest plays on blu ray now.

Be sure to see all 8 O'Bannon highlights and 4 Keller highlights on 1 action packed video! They might even have enough to buy copies for their immediate family members too
 
# 7 Dogslax41 @ 09/27/13 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by debauchlord
My guess? Players will never get paid while in college. Never. The reason being is that because of Title IX, you will have to pay all players. Not necessarily equally, but pay them just the same. The value of a college education vastly trumps any sort of "earnings" a female soccer player brings in. Additionally, all college students are assessed an "athletic fee", which pays for gyms, stadiums, teams, etc. No way in hell am I subsidizing Bruiser McKneecaps to drink beer, get laid, and take Rocks for Jocks four times.

I think what will happen is that the NCAA will pull away from professional leagues, make a student athlete's "free ride" 100% dependent on their graduation (if they do not graduate in five years, they must pay the money back), and kids that do not want to go to college, can skip to the pros. The pros will have then be forced to develop a better minor league system, like baseball and hockey and soccer (I believe?).

These changes are a long ways coming anyway, I am glad something as petty as 133.00 bucks per athlete is the catalyst to this.
Player's won't be paid by the institution in a formal capacity, for the very reason that you mentioned. but we are headed directly toward players being able to sign endorsement deals and be paid for their image and likeness. This is the can of worms the NCAA has opened because of their greed.

Now the real negotiating is going to come between the players and the school because just because the courts may rule a player can market himself and his image, what he wont be able to do is wear the uniform unless there is an agreement between the player and the school and how valuable is a player's image when not linked to his university logo?
 
# 8 debauchlord @ 09/27/13 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogslax41
Player's won't be paid by the institution in a formal capacity, for the very reason that you mentioned. but we are headed directly toward players being able to sign endorsement deals and be paid for their image and likeness. This is the can of worms the NCAA has opened because of their greed.

Now the real negotiating is going to come between the players and the school because just because the courts may rule a player can market himself and his image, what he wont be able to do is wear the uniform unless there is an agreement between the player and the school and how valuable is a player's image when not linked to his university logo?
I always found it funny that football players want to market their likeness, when 90% of fans only see players with their helmets on. I am a huge football fan but can only pick a few guys out of a line up if they are not wearing their jerseys. The Manning brothers are distinctive, Tom Brady of course, Ray Lewis. Cut Clay Matthews hair and he disappears. Put Manziel or Clowney in a tshirt and biker shorts and I wouldn't know who the hell they are. But hey, capitalism, am I right?

Only 3% of college athletes make pro squads. I hope all these changes that will occur don't mess things up for the other 97%.
 
# 9 da ThRONe @ 09/27/13 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogslax41
Player's won't be paid by the institution in a formal capacity, for the very reason that you mentioned. but we are headed directly toward players being able to sign endorsement deals and be paid for their image and likeness. This is the can of worms the NCAA has opened because of their greed.

Now the real negotiating is going to come between the players and the school because just because the courts may rule a player can market himself and his image, what he wont be able to do is wear the uniform unless there is an agreement between the player and the school and how valuable is a player's image when not linked to his university logo?
This. There's no reason that the NCAA or any school should prohibit student athletes from gaining money legally.
 
# 10 da ThRONe @ 09/27/13 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Marlowe
Lets be frank, there is never going to be an NFL minor league.and the NBA is not interested in expanding the NBDL. College athletics have a stranglehold and will continue to have one (as they want, for very good fiscal reasons). It would also be incredibly difficult to put together a fair pay all system. So in the end, the best thing to have happen is the NCAA releasing its monopoly on player likenesses and names for profit. The status quo would stay mostly in tact and those players who are really interested in monetizing themselves can without threat of sanctions to their schools.
As it should be. 90% of the time the people who pay for the violations aren't the ones even committing them. There has never been a good reason to criminalize one party giving another party money for anything that doesn't envolve a crime taking place.
 
# 11 JLoco11 @ 09/27/13 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Marlowe
Lets be frank, there is never going to be an NFL minor league.and the NBA is not interested in expanding the NBDL. College athletics have a stranglehold and will continue to have one (as they want, for very good fiscal reasons). It would also be incredibly difficult to put together a fair pay all system. So in the end, the best thing to have happen is the NCAA releasing its monopoly on player likenesses and names for profit. The status quo would stay mostly in tact and those players who are really interested in monetizing themselves can without threat of sanctions to their schools.
Well, David Stern and Adam Silver have both already stated they want to expand the D-League, evidenced by the new team they just added in August, and 3 more teams over the next 2 years.

That leaves the NFL as the only 1 of the big 4 without a minor league system... which is sort of the lame attempt they had with the Euro league. While the NFL certainly isn't remotely close to a minor league, the NBA sure is.

Regardless of the money the NCAA makes, the NFL is their own business. They have a relationship with the NCAA, but their future isn't dictated by the NCAA trying to make money. If the NFL wants to expand into a minor league system, they're not going to ask the NCAA for approval... they ask for cooperation, but certainly not approval.
 
# 12 debauchlord @ 09/27/13 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by da ThRONe
This. There's no reason that the NCAA or any school should prohibit student athletes from gaining money legally.
If the athlete is famous "because of" the university, then who gets the cut and how much? Texas A&M was popular before Manziel. How much is Johnny Football's likeness tied to Texas A&M? How much is Johnny Football's "Johnny Football-ness" tied to Texas A&M's system, situation, and marketing?

Just to be clear, I can't answer these questions, but you know who will answer them? Lawyers. There has to be tons of law firms just waiting for the NCAA implosion.
 
# 13 Dogslax41 @ 09/27/13 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by debauchlord
If the athlete is famous "because of" the university, then who gets the cut and how much? Texas A&M was popular before Manziel. How much is Johnny Football's likeness tied to Texas A&M? How much is Johnny Football's "Johnny Football-ness" tied to Texas A&M's system, situation, and marketing?

Just to be clear, I can't answer these questions, but you know who will answer them? Lawyers. There has to be tons of law firms just waiting for the NCAA implosion.
Lawyers can't answer those questions either. Nike, Under Armour, etc answer those questions based on marketability and demand. A player will either have to negotiate with the school to get the rights to wear the jersey or see how much they are worth without it.

A likeness or marketability is not tied bewteen the player and the university. A player would not owe royalties to a university any more than an actor would not owe royalties to the producer of thier first film that made them a household name.

This is where the future of a college video game gets murky. If it goes this way, which I think I will, then players, schools and conference are going to have to come to an agreement on one body to represent their best interest to television networks, video game companies and any other that want to market the sport as a whole.
 
# 14 debauchlord @ 09/27/13 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Marlowe
That went out the door as soon as profits entered the scene. That genie is never going back in the bottle. The more money these institutions make off football and basketball the more people will have their attention drawn to it. At the highests levels (where all the money is really made) the college/student relationship hasn't existed for years.
That is true ONLY in football and men's basketball, however. Pretty much every other student athlete is playing their sports and going to class and graduating.
 
# 15 sportzbro @ 09/27/13 03:41 PM
This case essentially sets the table for college athletes to be paid. All about precedent here.

Just can't wait to see college football players making $1,000+ per game on top of having access to personal trainers, nutritionists, post-graduation job network, free gear, national exposure, free "education"/academic assistant, under the table benefits, etc. while someone like me deals with 50K in student loans.

Oh, you can't live the baller life in college AND have a bunch of cash to blow on the weekends? Tough. You're a ****ing amateur athlete that has everything handed to you... And please stop saying that you sacrifice so much... what? Time in the weight room? Film study? Online "classes"? As a huge sports fan, particularly of college athletics (and former D-1A employee) this is off-putting.
 
# 16 Dogslax41 @ 09/27/13 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportzbro
As a huge sports FAN, particularly of college athletics (and former D-1A EMPLOYEE) this is off-putting.
Pretty much nullifies any question you ask about what D1 athletes sacrifice.
 
# 17 Kaiser Wilhelm @ 09/27/13 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportzbro
This case essentially sets the table for college athletes to be paid. All about precedent here.

Just can't wait to see college football players making $1,000+ per game on top of having access to personal trainers, nutritionists, post-graduation job network, free gear, national exposure, free "education"/academic assistant, under the table benefits, etc. while someone like me deals with 50K in student loans.

Oh, you can't live the baller life in college AND have a bunch of cash to blow on the weekends? Tough. You're a ****ing amateur athlete that has everything handed to you... And please stop saying that you sacrifice so much... what? Time in the weight room? Film study? Online "classes"? As a huge sports fan, particularly of college athletics (and former D-1A employee) this is off-putting.
As another poster mentioned, there is almost no way that the schools will ever pay their players. There is the legal issue with Title IX. As it stands, Title IX is probably the biggest obstacle to paying collegiate athletes.

You can't simply pay the football and men's basketball players. Similarly, you cannot pay every student athlete unless you cut every sport except the few big sports, Football, Basketball, Baseball, Softball, Soccer etc. Even then I'm not sure what you do.
 
# 18 Kaiser Wilhelm @ 09/27/13 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Marlowe
When you help generate massive amouts of revenue you should be entitled to some of the profit. That's all this is about. I understand your disapproval but...thats life.
The players already are compensated with a free education. If I had my way however every scholarship would require a high school 3.0 GPA. Then these players might realize how good their situation really is.
 
# 19 sportzbro @ 09/27/13 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogslax41
Pretty much nullifies any question you ask about what D1 athletes sacrifice.
I'm unsure what you're trying to say? I do love college sports, but being around it & actively involved with it - I'm unsure what's so tough about it... You practice, watch film, lift, each free meals, are worshiped by the fan base, etc. Sure, it's a huge time commitment, but they know what they're signing up for. What else do you want especially when only a handful of universities turn a profit. Stop whining - you benefit the university as much as the name and brand of the university benefits you, the athlete.
 
# 20 Dogslax41 @ 09/27/13 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportzbro
I'm unsure what you're trying to say? I do love college sports, but being around it & actively involved with it - I'm unsure what's so tough about it... You practice, watch film, lift, each free meals, are worshiped by the fan base, etc. Sure, it's a huge time commitment, but they know what they're signing up for. What else do you want especially when only a handful of universities turn a profit. Stop whining - you benefit the university as much as the name and brand of the university benefits you, the athlete.
I'm saying you have no clue what you are talking about and have no room to ask how tough can it be because you have never done it. I played D1 in college. I had scholarships and chose not to accept them. Why would someone do this? Because I played a sport where going pro meant making a couple hundred bucks a game and I knew that if I accepted a scholarship that University could dictate the terms of my scholarship. I get hurt...bye bye scholarship. I want to take challenging classes, only at the approval of the head coach. I don't feel like sacrificing my education for a sport that may or may not be in my future, too bad I'm committed to the team and my education being "paid" for is at their discretion.

So instead I chose a better education that I had to pay for and still had film sessions, lifting, practice marketing commitments, travel and much more that prevented me from having even remotely the college experience that non-athletes get to enjoy. Luckily I chose the way I did because I blew my knee out and would have had my scholarship taken before I was done. After tearing up my knee and getting to be a regular student my GPA went through the roof and I had time to socialize, attend special lectures and just be a student. None of those things were available as a D1 athlete. So unless you have put in the hours then its pretty ridiculous to ask what's so hard about being a D1 athlete.

So a free education could have only potentially cost me a compromised education, a surgically repaired knee, a surgically repaired elbow and a lifetime of migraines possibly from concussions. You get any of those being an EMPLOYEE of a D1 program?
 

« Previous1234567Next »

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