The NCAA may finally have met their match. Former UCLA superstar and NCAA champion Ed O'Bannon filed a class action lawsuit against the NCAA looking to get a piece of the licensing pie. O'Bannon in his lawsuit isn't asking for the players to be paid while they're in school, but for them to be able to get some form of compensation for the use of their images, jerseys etc. after they're out of school.
Right now the NCAA doesn't allow former or current players to receive any money from the billion dollar licensing business they run. This includes: video games, jerseys, DVD's sold and whatever other way the NCAA can find to make money off of these players images. The lawsuit says that the players are forced as freshman to sign over their rights for use of their likeness. They either sign the paper and agree to this or they can't go to school and play ball. So the NCAA basically takes advantage of young kids who really have no concept of what they're signing over. Think about all the championship DVD's that you see advertised every year after someone wins the championship. All that additional revenue doesn't go to the players. This is an additional billion dollar industry aside from the basic television contracts that the NCAA benefits from.
These "student athletes" are given scholarships and don't have to worry about room and board. And that is always pointed to as the "student athletes" payment for playing. But do you know how many home games it takes for the Michigan Wolverines to cover those expenses for their whole football team? One game at the Big House takes care of all those football players scholarships. That's what happens when you have a stadium that seats over 100,000 people and you're taking care of scholarships for only 80+ players.
This lawsuit makes sense because they aren't asking to be paid out of the money the school earns off of them at the gate and through TV. They're only asking that any use of their image they be compensated for. And why shouldn't they be? If someone buys the 1987 Indiana championship basketball DVD to watch the Keith Smart shot, shouldn't Keith Smart get a piece of that?
In a sense I can understand why the NCAA doesn't want to try and figure out how to pay current players. That would open up a can of worms about whether you have to pay so called "student athletes" in all sports or just the money making sports like football and basketball. I think football and basketball players should be paid some kind of stipend. When you look at the money they generate not only at the stadiums, but with the TV deals it only makes sense to pay them something. Are more people at Florida football games for Tim Tebow or Urban Meyer? I think the answer is obvious. And yet Urban Meyer makes millions a year. Tim Tebow will be able to make millions once he goes pro, but say he gets hurt at Florida and can't play in the pros. So all the money over in the future Florida will be able to make off of using Tebow's likeness, and not one cent will make it to him.
When George Mason made its final four run a couple of years ago most people outside of the Washington, DC area had never even heard of the school. But in the years since the final four run the applications to go to George Mason have skyrocketed. The admissions office at George Mason has said this is a direct correlation to the final four run. So these "student athletes" not only bring money into the athletic department but to the university as a whole. Chris Webber famously said one of the reasons he left school early was because he went to the student bookstore and saw his Michigan jersey on sale for $50, but he didn't have money to buy a pizza. With Webber though you have to assume this was before he had cashed the check from the booster, because then he could've bought a pizza store. Webber's quote though is a great look into the reality of these players lives. Putting in all the work, effort and sacrifice and seeing everyone around you the such as the coaches, boosters, school benefit can lead to more levels of cheating. We know some players and their families get illegal benefits. Why not make it above board so it is easier to track.
I hope O'Bannon wins this class action lawsuit and the NCAA is forced to take a look at how they take advantage of these "student athletes." People always point to the few that go pro and make millions, but the vast majority of these "student athletes" don't go pro and are left on the sidelines as their images are used over and over again for profit.
Believe me, these players get taken care of.
Academically, they get a much less course load. I've had classmates that balled who told me under the table that they didn't get the same assignments as I did when we took the same courses. And with the hardass teachers if they didn't get favored you know what happened? The team hired a "student tutor" to "assist" them.
They get a free degree if they stay in 4 years, and they also get money on the side like your boy Clarett. I don't see why they need to cry about jersey sales when any D1 athlete with an ounce of talent has been gaming the system in place for over 20 years now.
The 'just who should get paid?' argument is the one I tend to go with. You can say the revenue producers football and men's basketball, or other sports at schools where other sports draw well (like UConn and Tenn women's hoops), but then that raises more questions. Do you just pay the 22 starters in football, or all the scholarship guys, or just the big stars like Tebow? Paying all 70 to 80 guys is out of the question, even for Oklahoma or Texas or Florida. Should Duke pay all 12 to 15 players on their basketball team, even though they tend to recruit more affluent players than other schools? They do bring in the money, after all. And I bet the gymnasts (at the schools that have a team) will tell you they risk injury just like the moneymakers and should be compensated. And they would have a point.
Lastly, college sports didn't become big business until 30 to 40 years ago; the guys and girls who played in 1959 were working just as hard out there as those who play in 2009. Should they have gotten paid, even though they weren't making money for their schools? And would we be calling for today's players to get paid if their sports were all losing money?