Litigation Support Expert Comments on NCAA Video Game Lawsuits
Litigation Support Expert Comments on NCAA Video Game Lawsuits
August 3, 2009
As GamePolitics has reported, former college athletes have filed a trio of lawsuits this year alleging that the NCAA and video game publisher Electronic Arts profited from the unlicensed use of their images in video games based on college football and basketball.
If successful, the suits have the potential to change the way the sports licensing game is played. What are the chances that will happen?
IGN has posted an interview with litigation support/public relations expert Jason Maloni, whose firm represents Roger Clemens, among others. Maloni comments on the implications of the lawsuits for the NCAA and EA:
Technology is a huge part of it. When I was growing up playing Space Invaders, you couldn't be one of the characters in the game. But with sports games, it's become such a huge phenomenon to assume the identity of your favorite athlete, and it only increases the bond people have with both the game and the team. That's why the pro and collegiate ranks love this type of branding...
I expect the impact for EA Sports will be minimal. The company is still going to produce games and derive a profit. The NCAA and large institutions stand to lose a small part of their current revenue... however, they are making [money] hand over fist. I don't think compensating these athletes in some way at the end of the day going to put a crimp in their budgets. College sports are a big business and it will remain a big business...
Like a lot of laws, it takes someone to stand up and say this isn't right. You might also be seeing a growing sympathy for former athletes. Not everyone goes on to the pros or gets mega contracts. I think student athletes are seeing what former pro athletes have done recently seeking restitution against the NFL for the use of their images.
By "pro athletes," Maloni is referring to the recent $26.25 million settlement that a group of retired NFL players reached with the former union over the unlicensed use of their images in EA's best-selling Madden franchise.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN / REGISTER
Crispy Gamer
GamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 03/18/10 at 09:41pm
ZippyDSMlee: And not taxing the 30-500K bracket so much, sure you make 500K at the end of the year add in life thats minus 200K add in the company you made there's another 200K.
ZippyDSMlee: And not taxing the 30-500K bracket so much, sure you make 500K at the end of the year add in life thats minus 200K add in the company you made there's another 200K.
Posted 03/18/10 at 09:39pm
ZippyDSMlee: Flamespeak: we should be taxing the ultra rich alot more(those that have more than 10 million in wealth),.
ZippyDSMlee: Flamespeak: we should be taxing the ultra rich alot more(those that have more than 10 million in wealth),.
Posted 03/18/10 at 08:04pm
Flamespeak: I never understood why someone should work hard to get a lot of money, just to be punished with more taxes for doing so.
Flamespeak: I never understood why someone should work hard to get a lot of money, just to be punished with more taxes for doing so.
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:44pm
hayabusa75: Isn't the upper class supposed to be footing most of this bill?
hayabusa75: Isn't the upper class supposed to be footing most of this bill?
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:05pm
Austin_Lewis: Of course, that ignores the fact that for the next 4 years, the people will be taxed without 'benefit' from the bill.
Austin_Lewis: Of course, that ignores the fact that for the next 4 years, the people will be taxed without 'benefit' from the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:04pm
Austin_Lewis: If we go by the CBO's past estimation failures, they're about 300% short on the actual cost.
Austin_Lewis: If we go by the CBO's past estimation failures, they're about 300% short on the actual cost.
Posted 03/18/10 at 05:21pm
ZippyDSMlee: *punt*Roll call, whos on and how are you doing?
ZippyDSMlee: *punt*Roll call, whos on and how are you doing?
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:07pm
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:02pm
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:00pm
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:59am
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:58am
Valdearg: I do. The Short term costs are actually calculated facts. The long term estimates aren't necessarily 100% accurate, but to assume that they can't possibly be accurate because someone said they might not be 100% accurate is also wrong.
Valdearg: I do. The Short term costs are actually calculated facts. The long term estimates aren't necessarily 100% accurate, but to assume that they can't possibly be accurate because someone said they might not be 100% accurate is also wrong.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:57am
JDKJ: When someone says, "I could be wrong but, as best as I can tell, X," X ain't a fact.
JDKJ: When someone says, "I could be wrong but, as best as I can tell, X," X ain't a fact.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:53am
JDKJ: It's too early in the morning for you to be deaf, blind, and dumb drunk. A "my best guestimate" can't be a fact. Don't you understand the difference between the two?
JDKJ: It's too early in the morning for you to be deaf, blind, and dumb drunk. A "my best guestimate" can't be a fact. Don't you understand the difference between the two?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:41am
Valdearg: By how much depends on variables that can't necessarily be predicted at this point in time. And yes, those Facts are accurate only so far into the future, but those estimates can certainly be used to support this measure.
Valdearg: By how much depends on variables that can't necessarily be predicted at this point in time. And yes, those Facts are accurate only so far into the future, but those estimates can certainly be used to support this measure.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:40am
Valdearg: And I'm saying, as far as the CBO report goes, the facts that it does put forward are deficit reduction, reducing costs, and expanding costs. Those ARE facts.
Valdearg: And I'm saying, as far as the CBO report goes, the facts that it does put forward are deficit reduction, reducing costs, and expanding costs. Those ARE facts.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:30am
JDKJ: You were the one championing a qualified estimate as an indisputable fact. I'm merely pointing out that it's far from indisputable. So says the estimator.
JDKJ: You were the one championing a qualified estimate as an indisputable fact. I'm merely pointing out that it's far from indisputable. So says the estimator.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:27am
Valdearg: Or are you only breaking that argument out because the CBO says that this bill is a good thing for our deficit?
Valdearg: Or are you only breaking that argument out because the CBO says that this bill is a good thing for our deficit?
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Is it really going to be that much to EA? The end result will be a pay out and them attempting to be more careful with real athletes in their games in future.
Didn't I read that each Madden and FIFA makes a ridiculous amount of money (Hundreds of millions?)? That no doubt explains why it's not hard to resist pumping out constant sequels...
How are they going to compensate NCAA players anyway?
And still I do not understand why they can't equally diviy out a % of what a title makes to the players, and set aside money to the student players until they get out of collage.... sirously.....someone needs to take the leagues to court because they are raping the players, oh and FYI not all players make millions a year.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
I don't see why they should get compensation. They get scholarships. They are available for the draft. By playing for the NCAA, they stand to make significant salaries, not just if they go pro, but there are other sports and sportscasting jobs available to them because of the extra visibility they get as players.
Do all of the students get a check when a game is televised? Of course not. And yet it's their likenesses and their performances that are selling ALL of that commercial time.
They are amateurs who signed an agreement with an organization. That organization has every right to market itself, and the students basically agreed to that when they agreed to play.
When someone plays college football, they aren't fighting for their own success as much as they are the success of their ol' alma mater. If their team as a whole, and their likenesses as individuals contribute to the financial success of the NCAA and their own individual college... it's total bullshit to say "Yeah, but what's in it for me?" How about a free university education, ya schmucks?
Uhh, they don't all get scholarships. What was the point of all that blabbering?
The ones on the games tend to.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Seems to me like a bunch of spoiled rich folks on both sides of this issue squabbling about money. Why isn't it a reality TV show already?
Because the one side doesn't exist of just spoiled rich folks. See, this is the problem, people don't realize what this issue is about and just assume everyone who does a lawsuit for a lot of money is wrong and should shut up.
I'm not saying they're spoiled rich folk. I'm saying that they gave up their right to compensation when they signed as an amateur to go to the college and play football. The students CAN'T profit from the sales of the game or they would not be amateurs anymore. It's the SCHOOLS and the National Collegiate Athletic ASSOCATION who are involved in the contract with EA. The schools make the money. The athletes benefit through exposure, not cold hard cash.