In reply to: How many players are actually going to benefit from posted by TWO
or any other ND player? I have a Jersey at home with the #3 on it and no name who is owed money for that, every player who has worn #3 or only the guy who is wearing it when I bought it?
Making it explicitly legal establishes the foundation for a video game publishers to directly license this information from players, using their likeness, names, etc.
and pay the players.
It is the NCAA cartel that refuses to allow the game to go forward as they won't sign off on the licensing agreements.
The pro sports license likeness through their player associations, not through the league.
Do NCAA bylaws currently provide authority for it to use player likeness, which players consent to in order to participate? Or do the bylaws just prohibit players from exploiting these rights as a condition for participation? If the former, that presumably would also be among what is challenged.
I don't get the impression that the NCAA itself or member institutions are directly hoarding rights and exploiting them to EA. They just prohibit players from dealing with EA and other entities. So EA formerly acted pursuant to that understanding that no licensing of likeness rights was required.
So EA would be on the hook for past violations unless the statute of limitations ran out on the last time they exploited those rights.
Of course, if EA pays licensing rights to the institutions, when you add players to the mix, those institutions would likely need to take a pay cut from what EA deems is the total licensing fee expenses permitted by the market for EA to make a profit.
Assuming some body is formed with the consent of players that is permitted by antitrust and collective bargaining law and that deals on behalf of the players.
I don't think there's such a thing as "past violations". My understanding is the NCAA barred athletes from exploiting their rights as a condition for participation, to fit under the banner of student-athletes and amateurism, etc.
The NCAA was essentially collectively bargaining for the rights to all the universities' brands, fight songs, etc. in the context of college football. As games got more sophisticated, EA added jersey numbers and a rough likeness of players. Additionally, they pre-recorded names of different players, such that if the user chose to rename #10 at Notre Dame to "Quinn", the announcers would say "Quinn" instead of "the quarterback". It all got very dubious where the line of likeness was and how much EA vs the NCAA was profiting off their likeness.
Granted, players and fans both loved it, but it became increasingly untenable for EA to claim that they weren't profiting off their likeness outside the rights the NCAA had licensed them. They decided the liability outweighed the value of sales and canceled the contract with the NCAA. They just want certainty in who they're dealing with and that all stakeholders' rights are established and legal before continuing development. The NFL and NFLPA make all this so much easier.
back in the early 2000s and they had Dorsey playing for the U in the video game. He didn't get any $ from it, even though they used his #12 & likeness.
Well, not Ian Book, but basically every DI player. It went beyond just having a roster of players with the same numbers at the right position as the real team did. Each player also had appearance, ability, and background characteristics that were designed to be the real player.