For years, the N.C.A.A. heard concerns that the video games bearing its name and logo infringed on the rights of student-athletes. The animated avatars often bore a resemblance to actual players, with similar attributes and physical characteristics, even the same jersey numbers.
But N.C.A.A. executives dismissed the criticism and did not limit the game’s maker, Electronic Arts, from producing as realistic an experience as possible, for fear of losing the lucrative contract.
On Wednesday, however, the N.C.A.A. became the one to sever ties, announcing that it would not renew its contract with E.A. next year. The decision is perhaps the biggest real-world development in a more than four-year-old legal battle focused on the rights of college athletes on how their likenesses can be used and what, if any, compensation they should receive.
The suit, filed by the former U.C.L.A. basketball player Ed O’Bannon, could change the landscape of college athletics by requiring that student-athletes receive a share of revenue from video games and broadcast rights.
The N.C.A.A. has mounted a vigorous legal defense in the case and maintained Wednesday that it “has never licensed the use of current student-athlete names, images or likenesses to E.A.,” which is also a defendant in the case.
The N.C.A.A. cautioned that its decision not to renew the video game contract should not be seen as a signal that it would back away from its legal stand.
“We are confident in our legal position regarding the use of our trademarks in video games,” the N.C.A.A. said. “But given the current business climate and costs of litigation, we determined participating in this game is not in the best interests of the N.C.A.A.”
The N.C.A.A. said that universities licensed their own trademarks for the video game, meaning it could live on without the association’s name on it. The universities “will have to independently decide whether to continue those business arrangements in the future,” the N.C.A.A. said.
Many universities license their rights through Collegiate Licensing Company, which is also a defendant in the case.
O’Bannon’s legal team saw the N.C.A.A.’s move as “arrogant, petty, and punitive,” saying it “undermined” its position “by unilaterally” ending the relationship with E.A.
“Rather than share any proceeds from the use of the likeness and names of players in the E.A. game, they bite their nose to spite their face and hurt the players and the consumers,” said Michael Hausfeld, O’Bannon’s lawyer.
Stacey Osburn, a spokeswoman for the N.C.A.A., said, “This decision and the N.C.A.A.’s business relationship with E.A. only pertained to the N.C.A.A. logo and name.”
“Student-athletes were never a part of this relationship, and plaintiffs’ attorneys know it,” she said, adding that the N.C.A.A. was paid $545,000 annually, which she said was used to support student-athletes.
E.A. has denied any wrongdoing in the case.
A federal judge in Oakland, Calif., is considering whether to allow the case to proceed as a class action, potentially making way for thousands of college athletes past and present to join the case. The judge, Claudia Wilken, heard arguments on the class-action motion last month.
The case file includes e-mails in which N.C.A.A. executives discussed concerns that the video games were “too close to reality.” In 2003, one executive warned another in an e-mail to “be cautious” about addressing such issues because “any more ‘watering down’ of the video games will likely move the manufacturers to cease operations with us.”
Robert Boland, a sports law professor at New York University, said the move could signal a fracture between the N.C.A.A. and E.A.
“You say that in a normal course of business, almost no one would give up the video game, and certainly E.A. is the biggest” game maker in the genre, Boland said. “But from a legal standpoint, it looks like the N.C.A.A. has determined that maybe this isn’t a place it should be in.”
Sonny Vaccaro, a former sports marketing executive and a longtime critic of the N.C.A.A., who originally put O’Bannon in touch with his lawyers in this case, said Wednesday’s announcement was “a big victory for college athletes” and evidence that the lawsuit was “starting to gain some traction in the world we live in.”
“I’m very happy because I see it as the N.C.A.A. starting to get the feeling that there can be changes in the future,” Vaccaro said.
The N.C.A.A. said that NCAA Football 2014, which was released this month, would be the last to include the organization’s name and logo. It said it announced its decision now, well in advance of the contract expiring next June, to give E.A. time to plan for next year.
“I’m sure gamers are wondering what this means,” Andrew Wilson, the executive vice president of E.A. Sports, said in a statement. “This is simple: E.A. Sports will continue to develop and publish college football games, but we will no longer include the N.C.A.A. names and marks.
“Our relationship with the Collegiate Licensing Company is strong, and we are already working on a new game for next-generation consoles which will launch next year and feature the college teams, leagues and all the innovation fans expect from E.A. Sports.”
Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/sports/as-legal-battle-continues-ncaa-ends-tie-with-electronic-arts.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Speak Your Mind
You must be logged in to post a comment.