OT - former players NIL??

[RBigredMax]

Chalmers, ex-players sue over Madness promos

A group of former college basketball players has sued the NCAA, multiple conferences and Turner Sports for the unauthorized use of NIL in March Madness highlights.

www.espn.com

Surely the game action and footage is owned by NCAA? I can’t see a case here?

 

[Dean Pope]

Chalmers, ex-players sue over Madness promos

A group of former college basketball players has sued the NCAA, multiple conferences and Turner Sports for the unauthorized use of NIL in March Madness highlights.

www.espn.com

Surely the game action and footage is owned by NCAA? I can’t see a case here?

If there is a case here, what is next? Blurring out players on game highlights?

 

[king_kong_]

When you operate in direct violation of antitrust laws for a century and admit it you make yourself a pretty big target

 

[king_kong_]

If there is a case here, what is next? Blurring out players on game highlights?

Next is paying people for the services they render for you.

You know. Business.

 

[RBigredMax]

Next is paying people for the services they render for you.

You know. Business.

In this case the NCAA owns the footage. Surely there is something in scholarship clauses that say they do not have any rights to film or game highlights?

 

[king_kong_]

In this case the NCAA owns the footage. Surely there is something in scholarship clauses that say they do not have any rights to film or game highlights?

Universal Studios owns the footage they shot for Jurassic Park.

Do you think that means they don't have to pay the actors who star in it?

LMAO at the bolded. literally re-read that and try not to laugh, knowing every court in the land has (correctly) ruled that scholarships aren't worth a hill of beans when discussing proper compensation for services the NCAA makes billions on.

 

[rgrachek]

Chalmers, ex-players sue over Madness promos

A group of former college basketball players has sued the NCAA, multiple conferences and Turner Sports for the unauthorized use of NIL in March Madness highlights.

www.espn.com

Surely the game action and footage is owned by NCAA? I can’t see a case here?

100%. It's no different than if you played a small role on Seinfeld for which you got paid, then demand a NIL residual every time the show you were on airs.

 

[king_kong_]

100%. It's no different than if you played a small role on Seinfeld for which you got paid, then demand a NIL residual every time the show you were on airs.

This is quite literally exactly how it works.

Quite literally.

 

[rgrachek]

Universal Studios owns the footage they shot for Jurassic Park.

Do you think that means they don't have to pay the actors who star in it?

LMAO at the bolded. literally re-read that and try not to laugh, knowing every court in the land has (correctly) ruled that scholarships aren't worth a hill of beans when discussing proper compensation for services the NCAA makes billions on.

It has nothing to do with your or anyone else's interpretation of "proper compensation". It has to do with what's in the contract, period. This bullshit where a person who works for someone thinks that they're entitled to some of the profit if the business makes a lot of money has to stop. These players had no skin in the game, and if money was lost in the venture, it wouldn't have come out of the player's pockets.

And another thing, shame on these NBA players who likely made millions playing the game and in endorsements while in the NBA. Sound like they may have blown all of their money, so they now think they're entitled to someone else's!

And another thing again, the NCAA doesn't "make" Billions. The NCAA is an administrative arm of the Universities and Colleges. The schools get 75% of the revenue and another 20% is spent on the organization of national championships. They keep the remainder for operations. There's no Monopoly Man collecting earnings on college sports. Just look at the palatial facilities and the attention our athletes have and get. That costs money and that money is spent on them.

Jesus people are so freaking stupid sometimes.

 

[king_kong_]

It has nothing to do with your or anyone else's interpretation of "proper compensation". It has to do with what's in the contract, period. This bullshit where a person who works for someone thinks that they're entitled to some of the profit if the business makes a lot of money has to stop. These players had no skin in the game, and if money was lost in the venture, it wouldn't have come out of the player's pockets.

And another thing, shame on these NBA players who likely made millions playing the game and in endorsements while in the NBA. Sound like they may have blown all of their money, so they now think they're entitled to someone else's!

And another thing again, the NCAA doesn't "make" Billions. The NCAA is an administrative arm of the Universities and Colleges. The schools get 75% of the revenue and another 20% is spent on the organization of national championships. They keep the remainder for operations. There's no Monopoly Man collecting earnings on college sports. Just look at the palatial facilities and the attention our athletes have and get. That costs money and that money is spent on them.

Jesus people are so freaking stupid sometimes.

Do you honestly think people who played a small part in a syndicated show don’t get residual checks every time their episode airs?

You honestly think that?

 

[rgrachek]

This is quite literally exactly how it works.

Quite literally.

It only works that way if it's in your contract and no player has a contract entitling them to residuals.

 

[rgrachek]

Do you honestly think people who played a small part in a syndicated show don’t get residual checks every time their episode airs?

You honestly think that?

Only principal characters get SAG, but most of the actors work at union scale. Do you honestly think that on the 800 channels we have that all of the actors get residual checks every time their show airs?

 

[king_kong_]

Only principal characters get SAG, but most of the actors work at union scale. Do you honestly think that on the 800 channels we have that all of the actors get residual checks every time their show airs?

Syndicated shows, yes.

Most checks are for pennies.

 

[RBigredMax]

Universal Studios owns the footage they shot for Jurassic Park.

Do you think that means they don't have to pay the actors who star in it?

LMAO at the bolded. literally re-read that and try not to laugh, knowing every court in the land has (correctly) ruled that scholarships aren't worth a hill of beans when discussing proper compensation for services the NCAA makes billions on.

Just so I’m clear - you are saying movie actors are the same as athletes? Athletes were compensated by scholarship covering their room, board and school.

Up until 10 mins ago that was their “compensation”. I get that has changed now, BUT the rules were the rules at that time.

Professional athletes, having been paid salaries and bonuses can now get compensation on Super Bowl replays? I was just watching the Colts/Bears Super Bowl, are you advocating they should get residual income every time that game is played and every highlight used? Is that for every player on the team?

A student in the band who may have had a teary moment in the final four is now used, on highlights to show the emotion of the game and tourney, should they be compensated? OR is this covered on their ticket into the event that so and so company holds the rights to any footage and they are a willing participant in the event knowing they will not get compensated?

I don’t think this is as clear cut as you think it is.

 

[king_kong_]

Athletes were compensated by scholarship covering their room, board and school.

for their participation in their sport

Not for their name, image or likeness, as the American justice system has accurately ruled. Comp in arrears is insanely common in instances like this.

The rest is a mix of required consent, fair compensation and accurate widesweeping legal disclaimers

 

[itseasyas1-2-3]

Syndicated shows, yes.

Most checks are for pennies.

I texted my adopted son since he's a SAG actor and appeared in 3 network television shows, 2 of which are in syndication. Lethal Weapon, NCIS: LA and S.W.A.T.. He wasn't just a "bit" player but was the main character in an episode that aired.

 

[rgrachek]

for their participation in their sport

Not for their name, image or likeness, as the American justice system has accurately ruled. Comp in arrears is insanely common in instances like this.

The rest is a mix of required consent, fair compensation and accurate widesweeping legal disclaimers

So when UNL used my likeness in an Engineering Pamphlet in 1984 when I was in graduate school, they now owe me money 40 years later?

You seem to be advocating for one group of people because you like college sports without realizing that if their case is valid, everyone who ever had their picture taken would be due money.

 

[itseasyas1-2-3]

Syndicated shows, yes.

Most checks are for pennies.

From my adopted son the SAG actor.
Quote: "Of course we do! Everytime it's a new deal for the show I get paid more. Not in pennies or a few bucks, but real money."

This is in reference to if an actor gets royalties/residuals from syndicated shows they acted in. Different networks have different amounts they pay for the syndicated shows. Obviously, shows like Seinfeld, MASH, Friends, etc bring in huge amounts for the primary actors/actresses.

Some have unusual contracts, like the guy who does the Allstate?? commercials who causes all the chaos. He gets in the neighborhood of $ 5,578.00?? EACH TIME any of his commercials air on any network.
He is in primarilty athletic time slots, but may air on Fox, the 3 major networks, SEC Network as well as the other conference networks, Peacock, ESPN, etc. It's not unusual for his ad to run 20 times or more on a football Saturday on the different networks. It's a "Per-Play" contract.

 

[HuskerDrew]

These people are effing morons. You agreed to play the sports and that the NCAA or broadcast entity would own the rights to the highlights, etc
Sorry losers, you should have invested better.

That would be like Vince Carter demanding more money because people watch his highlight dunks from 20 years ago….

 

[Big bo fan]

These people are effing morons. You agreed to play the sports and that the NCAA or broadcast entity would own the rights to the highlights, etc
Sorry losers, you should have invested better.

That would be like Vince Carter demanding more money because people watch his highlight dunks from 20 years ago….

I agree their pro days are over and the didn’t save anything.

 

[RedBaloneyPony]

From my adopted son the SAG actor.
Quote: "Of course we do! Everytime it's a new deal for the show I get paid more. Not in pennies or a few bucks, but real money."

This is in reference to if an actor gets royalties/residuals from syndicated shows they acted in. Different networks have different amounts they pay for the syndicated shows. Obviously, shows like Seinfeld, MASH, Friends, etc bring in huge amounts for the primary actors/actresses.

Some have unusual contracts, like the guy who does the Allstate?? commercials who causes all the chaos. He gets in the neighborhood of $ 5,578.00?? EACH TIME any of his commercials air on any network.
He is in primarilty athletic time slots, but may air on Fox, the 3 major networks, SEC Network as well as the other conference networks, Peacock, ESPN, etc. It's not unusual for his ad to run 20 times or more on a football Saturday on the different networks. It's a "Per-Play" contract.

Currently watching Friends, this episode has a young Ben Stiller in it, assuming his only time being on Friends, you’re saying they are still cutting Ben Stiller a check for this one episode?

 

[TarheelHuskerFan]

Fair or not, these guys knew exactly what they signed up for.
This is the same as a candidate gratefully accepting a job at $17 an hour then 6 months later being resentful and complaining that they are underpaid and don’t make enough money.
If you feel it’s unfair, don’t sign up for it.

 

[RBigredMax]

for their participation in their sport

Not for their name, image or likeness, as the American justice system has accurately ruled. Comp in arrears is insanely common in instances like this.

The rest is a mix of required consent, fair compensation and accurate widesweeping legal disclaimers

What are your thoughts to other questions I posed above. Should every highlight have royalties to every player shown in professional sports? Should fans who become central characters also have the same ability to receive royalties.

 

[king_kong_]

What are your thoughts to other questions I posed above. Should every highlight have royalties to every player shown in professional sports? Should fans who become central characters also have the same ability to receive royalties.

Pro athletes are able to negotiate on their own behalf in good faith, unlike these former college athletes

Fans are covered like you say with sweeping disclaimers, probably stemming from a successful suit like this one. Unique circumstances still require expressed consent

 

[itseasyas1-2-3]

Currently watching Friends, this episode has a young Ben Stiller in it, assuming his only time being on Friends, you’re saying they are still cutting Ben Stiller a check for this one episode?

I have no idea, I'm only letting my adopted son speak since he speaks from actual experience.

 

[king_kong_]

Fair or not, these guys knew exactly what they signed up for.
This is the same as a candidate gratefully accepting a job at $17 an hour then 6 months later being resentful and complaining that they are underpaid and don’t make enough money.
If you feel it’s unfair, don’t sign up for it.

It’s not the same because Mr $17 an hour had an ability to negotiate and/or seek similar opportunities elsewhere

College athletes could do neither until very recently.

 

[king_kong_]

Currently watching Friends, this episode has a young Ben Stiller in it, assuming his only time being on Friends, you’re saying they are still cutting Ben Stiller a check for this one episode?

Yes.

 

[king_kong_]

So when UNL used my likeness in an Engineering Pamphlet in 1984 when I was in graduate school, they now owe me money 40 years later?

You seem to be advocating for one group of people because you like college sports without realizing that if their case is valid, everyone who ever had their picture taken would be due money.

Not even close on any of this.

Sorry, bud.

If the ncaa think they have a case they’ll take it to court and lose yet again.

 

[RBigredMax]

Pro athletes are able to negotiate on their own behalf in good faith, unlike these former college athletes

Fans are covered like you say with sweeping disclaimers, probably stemming from a successful suit like this one. Unique circumstances still require expressed consent

Any former athletes have any knowledge of this type of disclaimer is a part of the scholarship acceptance?

 

[mgbreis]

This is literally TLDR; so I'll just comment on one aspect: clearly the recent legal decisions and settlements have rendered any old scholarship contracts unenforceable and void on their face. Do we really think a contract, once signed, is etched in stone and can never be revisited based on current circumstances?

 

[mgbreis]

Yes.

How can people not know this?

 

[rgrachek]

Not even close on any of this.

Sorry, bud.

If the ncaa think they have a case they’ll take it to court and lose yet again.

Again, another answer void of argument, other than to say I'm wrong.

It's amazing how few people's belief's are based on concrete, defensible, and arguable views of the world. Most people just go by their feelings and desires. Kind of pathetic, bud.

 

[king_kong_]

Again, another answer void of argument, other than to say I'm wrong.

It's amazing how few people's belief's are based on concrete, defensible, and arguable views of the world. Most people just go by their feelings and desires. Kind of pathetic, bud.

What you posted is so far off the mark it doesn’t warrant correction

Its beyond obvious you lack even basic understanding of the issue at hand here

 

[king_kong_]

How can people not know this?

Ask @rgrachek who not only doesn’t know this but still thinks he’s right about it

 

[king_kong_]

This is literally TLDR; so I'll just comment on one aspect: clearly the recent legal decisions and settlements have rendered any old scholarship contracts unenforceable and void on their face. Do we really think a contract, once signed, is etched in stone and can never be revisited based on current circumstances?

thanks.

This is an attorney, so please read carefully. And reread if you need to, @rgrachek

 

[king_kong_]

Any former athletes have any knowledge of this type of disclaimer is a part of the scholarship acceptance?

neither here nor there

courts have ruled that scholarships don't pertain to NIL

 

[Cedric]

T

Any former athletes have any knowledge of this type of disclaimer is a part of the scholarship acceptance?

There was always a clause in the standard grant-in-aid (scholarship) document that gave the NCAA permission to use the student-athlete's likeness in such things as promotional videos and productions. I have not seen one of those GIA agreements for a couple of years, so I don't know if that clause is still in there. But historically the kids signed over the rights to their likeness.

 

[itseasyas1-2-3]

T

There was always a clause in the standard grant-in-aid (scholarship) document that gave the NCAA permission to use the student-athlete's likeness in such things as promotional videos and productions. I have not seen one of those GIA agreements for a couple of years, so I don't know if that clause is still in there. But historically the kids signed over the rights to their likeness.

I could be wrong, but if the athlete signed the scholarship offer and wasn't yet 18 years old, that doesn't constitute a valid contract.

 

[rgrachek]

What you posted is so far off the mark it doesn’t warrant correction

Its beyond obvious you lack even basic understanding of the issue at hand here

Again nothing. I've been very clear on my understanding of the issue.

So let me get this straight, you have some measure of the magnitude of something being off the mark, let's just say a scale from 0-100. Let's pick 70 as you're threshold. So what you're saying is that if a person is off the mark by a magnitude of less than 70 on the scale of 0-100, then you'll respond with intelligent, cogent replies that booster your position. However, once you pass that threshold of 70, you decide to reply that the person is just a big fat poopie pants.

Wow, what a system. How do you decide the magnitude?

 

[mgbreis]

T

There was always a clause in the standard grant-in-aid (scholarship) document that gave the NCAA permission to use the student-athlete's likeness in such things as promotional videos and productions. I have not seen one of those GIA agreements for a couple of years, so I don't know if that clause is still in there. But historically the kids signed over the rights to their likeness.

I definitely don't want to talk out of my a$$, but I would think that since courts have time-and-again reached the conclusion that denying student athletes the right to profit from their NIL is illegal - I would also think that courts would conclude that any contracts based upon the old premise of "sign away your rights if you want this scholarship" are void and unenforceable. It would be like your employer saying, "sign away your right to a safe workplace if you want this paycheck." Void on its face.

I thought the recent settlement was designed to clear up all of these disputes.