ILNews

Lawsuit threatens NCAA's amateur business model

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The NCAA is facing a potential game-changing legal battle that has some colleges worrying their athletic budgets could be halved.

On June 20, a U.S. District Court in Oakland, Calif., will determine if an antitrust lawsuit brought by former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon—who argues he should’ve been paid for the use of his likeness on game broadcasts and in EA Sports video games—can become a class action. The plaintiffs say players should get 50 percent of revenue tied to player images.

If the NCAA loses the case, sports business experts say, college athletics would change forever. Many are calling the case the biggest threat to college sports’ amateurism model the Indianapolis-based organization has ever faced.

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany even suggested to Sports Illustrated last month that schools in his conference could move to a model without athletic scholarships.

While that might seem far-fetched and, in fact, Delany later backed off the comment, the case is serious enough that athletic directors nationwide are considering contingency plans for the worst-case scenario.

“I think Ed O’Bannon has a solid case,” said local attorney Milt Thompson, who operates the sports marketing firm Grand Slam Cos. “There’s merit that these players have the right to their own likeness and that shouldn’t be exploited without their permission.”

ncaa_factbox.jpgThe case itself, which was filed in 2009, isn’t due to come to trial until July 2014. But that hasn’t kept athletic directors like the University of Notre Dame’s Jack Swarbrick from thinking ahead.

“We’ve certainly discussed the O’Bannon case internally and we’ve talked about the consideration of what might come,” said Swarbrick, an attorney who formerly practiced law in Indianapolis. “I wouldn’t feel comfortable calling it a contingency plan. It’s a matter of monitoring [this case] and thinking about the consequences.”

Swarbrick said Notre Dame is not alone.

“Most institutions are engaging in internal discussions about this,” he said. “Clearly, we have to at least consider the possibility of any ruling which would impact the basic business model [of college athletics], which this case certainly has the potential to do.”

Purdue Athletic Director Morgan Burke and Indiana Athletic Director Fred Glass declined to comment on the pending suit or its ramifications. Swarbrick wouldn’t divulge specifics of internal discussions at Notre Dame.

Pat Haden, an attorney and University of Southern California athletics director since 2010, hasn’t been shy about voicing concern. He said the case is “no slam dunk” for the NCAA.

“What do we do if we lost? All of a sudden, your television revenue—let’s say it’s $20 million a year [for a school], now if [the plaintiffs] win, it’s $10 million a year,” Haden recently told Sports Illustrated. “How do you make 21 sports work on half the revenue?”

This much is clear: With the NCAA’s enormous TV contracts and burgeoning licensing business, a lot of cash is at stake. The TV and multimedia contract for the men’s basketball tournament alone is a 14-year, $10.8 billion arrangement.

Money generated by such entities as the Big Ten Network also could become a target. Each Big Ten school — including I.U. and Purdue — reaped $8.1 million in 2012 and will receive $7.6 million this year from the Big Ten Network. The schools each received another $10.9 million this year from the conference’s contracts with ABC and ESPN.

Also at stake is a share of the estimated annual $4 billion in collegiate licensed merchandise, a business that has exploded over the last 15 years.

All that cash could be targeted by the expanding O’Bannon lawsuit, which now wants to include current players.

Trench warfare

As the stakes rise, the NCAA and its allies are digging in.

“This case has always been wrong —wrong on the facts and wrong on the law,” NCAA Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Counsel Donald Remy said in a statement released earlier this spring.

NCAA officials maintain the association has the right to control a player’s likeness in perpetuity. That right, say officials for the NCAA and its member institution, comes from waivers signed by college athletes.

Big Ten’s Delany told reporters in Chicago in late April that the NCAA won’t settle and that he expects a long, hard legal fight.

“There should be no compromise on this,” he said.

That all-or-nothing strategy could be a mistake — especially if things don’t go the NCAA’s way on June 20.

“If the class gets certified, the NCAA will be backed into a corner,” said Andy Staples, who has covered the case for Sports Illustrated. “It could either fight and risk a judgment that could run into the billions, or it could settle and force schools into a new economic model.”

The plaintiffs’ case is being argued by a bevy of law firms, including the renowned Washington, D.C.-based Hausfeld LLP, which specializes in difficult class-action suits, having previously secured damages for Holocaust survivors from Swiss banks who kept their assets after World War II, Alaska Native Americans in their fight with Exxon after the Valdez oil spill, and plaintiffs in the European Union’s antitrust case against Microsoft.

The plaintiffs also are working with Ken Feinberg, who organized distribution plans for settlements for 9/11 victims; those affected by the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; victims of the Aurora, Colo., theater shootings; and sexual abuse victims of former Pennsylvania State University defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky.

Big O, Russell join case

The case has morphed dramatically since O’Bannon sat in his house in 2009 watching a video game featuring a UCLA player bearing his likeness.

In 2011, high-profile co-plaintiffs such as Indianapolis native Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell joined the lawsuit, in which video-game maker EA Sports is a co-defendant.

The case took a major turn in August 2012, when plaintiffs began arguing that current and former athletes should be included in the case and the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that players are entitled to 50 percent of revenue generated by not just video games but also NCAA and conference TV contracts.

Any judgment along those lines would be a massive blow to the NCAA, which is represented primarily by Ann Arbor, Mich., firm Schiff Hardin LLP, since TV revenue is by far its biggest revenue generator. It would also be a huge hit to Big Ten schools such as I.U. and Purdue, which have quickly become dependent on revenue generated by the Big Ten Network.

Whopper settlement?

The NCAA sought to halt the plaintiffs from pursuing class-action status, saying the O’Bannon group had dramatically changed its claim.

But in January, the NCAA suffered a big hit when Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court of Northern California denied the NCAA’s motion and agreed to hear the class-action certification request. Wilken also ruled in January that plaintiffs could add current players to the case and go after everyone profiting from the likeness of college athletes, including college conferences.

The June 20 court date “represents a tremendously important showdown in this case,” Thompson said. If the plaintiffs’ attorneys are granted class-action status, Thompson thinks the NCAA should be eager to settle. But that might not be easy.

“How do you calculate back damages?” Thompson said. “Those images allow the NCAA to generate a lot of money. The settlement could be a whopper.”

Even if damages escalate into the billions, they may not be the NCAA’s biggest concern.

In addition to demanding that all players get paid for every video game, highlight reel and game rebroadcast, O’Bannon’s lawyers are asking for something else — something that could position colleges one dangerous step from bidding for the services of student-athletes.

Plaintiffs are demanding that all current and future college athletes be able to forge their own licensing deals.

“Now you’re talking about a whole new game,” Thompson said. “It’s a game the NCAA doesn’t want any part of.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT