College Athletes Take ESPN, Broadcasters to Court for Share of TV Bounty

College Athletes ESPN Lawsuit
Kevin Whipple for Variety

The movement to compensate college athletes took a twist recently when a group of 10 collegiate football and basketball players sued not just athletic conferences, but ESPN and the broadcasters that reap a growing windfall from televising their games.

A key hearing is scheduled in a federal court in Nashville on April 13, when a judge will hear arguments on whether to dismiss the class action suit brought by the athletes or to allow the case to proceed. If it does move forward, that will be a victory for the players, who are bolstered by a federal court decision last year in which a judge concluded that the NCAA couldn’t block former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon and 19 others from receiving compensation for the use of their images in videogames and certain types of broadcasts. The 9th Circuit is considering an appeal.

The case against the broadcasters and ESPN, says Glen Rothstein, partner at Greenberg Glusker, is a step in the evolution of litigation surrounding compensation for college athletes. “This is the next case that is going to push the envelope,” he says.

In their lawsuit, the athletes argue that their likenesses, names and images are broadcast as part of a multibillion-dollar business enterprise, yet they receive no compensation. Among other things, they cite a right of publicity law in Tennessee, as well as violation of antitrust and trademark laws.

They say their situation is “akin to that of a movie production in which the parties involved (including the director, the casting agent, the film company and the distributor) share millions, and perhaps billions, of dollars in compensation, while the actors receive nothing.” Also named as defendants in their lawsuit are licensing agents WME Entertainment and IMG Worldwide.

The networks argue that they did not create the NCAA’s amateurism rules that prohibit payment, and have no ability to eliminate them. They also challenge the effort to pursue the Tennessee right of publicity claim, pointing out that the law excludes rights claims based on sports broadcasts. And they offer an analogy of their own: “Professional athletes negotiate their compensation for playing games (including the broadcast of those games) with the producers (their teams of leagues); broadcasters purchase rights from the teams or leagues as producers.”

Broadcasters also take aim at the O’Bannon decision. In an amicus brief filed for the NCAA’s appeal, they argue that the judge’s decision raises the prospect that every participant in a sports or entertainment event could control the way they are depicted or even mentioned in a telecast.

Even if the lawsuit against the broadcasters is thrown out, the debate over payment for college athletes will continue. Even President Obama, in an interview with the Huffington Post, has weighed in on the need to take “better care” of student athletes. NCAA exec Oliver Luck recently told an Indianapolis Fox station that while the NCAA believes it would be detrimental to pay athletes to play college sports, there is a question as to whether athletes should be compensated for the use of their name and likeness.

Notes Rothstein: “I think the tide of public opinion is going to be on the side of the athletes. There is so much money made by broadcasters and everybody else.”

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 3

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Andre Floyd says:

    The cost of a college education used to be compensation enough for the efforts and sacrifices made to play on a college team. The amount of money now generated by sales of broadcasts and other “casts” of the events has thrown the equation out of balance. If it is ever decided to provide additional monetary compensation to student athletes, I would like to see payment be contingent on obtaining a degree. That would benefit the students, the schools and the fans.

  2. Reblogged this on WARR – We Are Regal Radio and commented:
    The next big shot has been fired in the war over compensating college athletes.

  3. Robert Patterson says:

    If the athletes images are used beyond the broadcast of a particular game then yes they should be compensated for use of their likeness, whether its in a news broadcast or video game. Now whether or not compensation comes in the form of cash payments or payment of healthcare costs, college expenses such as tuition, housing, food, etc. will be up to the players and NCAA to work out. They should not be used as a money machine for the entertainment industry and universities without some sort of generous compensation package. Its akin to child labor. Its time to modernize the NCAA rules to keep time with the changes in technology and just out of plain ole fairness.

More Biz News from Variety