- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ed O'Bannon lawsuit strikes another blow -SIAP
Posted on 5/10/13 at 10:21 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 5/10/13 at 10:21 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Uh yeah this is not a legal theory upon which to defend a lawsuit.
at one time, neither was making the illogical argument that one party is so powerful that the other becomes a retard when it comes time to agree to that particular contract, but the concept of an adhesionary contract proved that policy was possible
policies are a big part of how contract law develops
if ed o'bannon and company want to basically eliminate NCAA sports, they're well on their way
1
Posted on 5/10/13 at 10:22 pm to jacks40
quote:
I mean the universities have superior bargaining position than student athletes do.
both have superior bargaining position in different ways
quote:
Sounds more like duress to me.
same concept at its heart
Posted on 5/10/13 at 10:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
a scholarship is a contract. it's an opportunity offered to elite players in certain sports
he could have just gone down to the local unemployment office and got a minimum wage job flipping burgers or he could have gone to a JUCO.
he instead decided to sign a contract (scholarship for 1 to 4 years) that basically guaranteed him a chance to continue to play ball and attend a good and fairly expensive university for free as long as he kept his part of the contract (good grades, performance, and what not).
This post was edited on 5/10/13 at 10:26 pm
Posted on 5/10/13 at 10:28 pm to shel311
quote:
I'm sure you would love if folks made millions of dollars off of you and you got paid nothing, right?
economically, was ed o'bannon in a better position after he gained the publicity and fame of an NCAA career?
let's not act like this is a 1-way street and NCAA athletes can't end up in a better economic position after their NCAA career while offering no investment other than playing sports and making decent grades
Posted on 5/10/13 at 10:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
both have superior bargaining position in different ways
Overall who is in the stronger position?
I get it, you don't believe in adhesion but if your dislike of that legal concept is taking you down the road of arguing that student athletes have the same bargaining power as the NCAA and its members then that's just a fundamental disagreement in how we see this issue.
The athlete certainly isn't without options "or at gunpoint" but come on.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 10:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
Can someone play college sports without giving the NCAA rights to his image?
Posted on 5/10/13 at 10:39 pm to jacks40
quote:
Overall who is in the stronger position?
that is impossible to determine
not going to the NCAA didn't exactly hurt Brandon Jennings. there are options outside of the NCAA for players
quote:
is taking you down the road of arguing that student athletes have the same bargaining power as the NCAA and its members then that's just a fundamental disagreement in how we see this issue.
why not go to europe?
i think the question you're ignoring is this: why is the NCAA option such an attractive option for these guys?
Posted on 5/10/13 at 10:41 pm to GeauxAggie972
quote:
So we are supposed to feel bad for Ed O'Bannon because he sucked at what he did and had to find another way to try and make money?
Now he is going to have even more people hate him for ending college sports games
It's a class action, smart guy.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 10:42 pm to C
quote:
Can someone play college sports without giving the NCAA rights to his image?
i doubt it
my question is if this suit is about the likeness rights they lost AFTER they stopped playing, what are we talking about, exactly? how many times are college players still on college games AFTER they stop playing?
Posted on 5/10/13 at 10:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
Espn is always showing highlights and games from the past.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 10:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
Espn is always showing highlights and games from the past.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 10:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that is impossible to determine
To you maybe but it seems like a court will probably determine that very thing in the O'Bannon case.
quote:
i think the question you're ignoring is this: why is the NCAA option such an attractive option for these guys?
Well for football players its not an attractive option at all is it? It's just the best of a bunch bad ones, arena, CFL, not play.
Also I'm not ignoring it. I fully understand that there is a tradeoff and players can benefit from a NCAA career.
Speaking strictly from my own opinion though I don't think what most players receive is enough to compensate for signing over likeness rights for the rest of time.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 10:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
my question is if this suit is about the likeness rights they lost AFTER they stopped playing, what are we talking about, exactly? how many times are college players still on college games AFTER they stop playing?
It isn't just after.
quote:
Originally, the lawsuits had been brought solely by former student-athletes like Keller, O'Bannon, and Oscar Robertson. The lawsuit completely changed course in August, when the plaintiffs amended their claims to include current players (saying that any damages due to them could be held in trust until their eligibility had run out). Despite the NCAA's vehement arguments against this change in tack, U.S. District Court of Northern California Judge Claudia Wilken, the judge overseeing the matter, issued a ruling in January allowing all players to be included as potential class action plaintiffs.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:00 pm to bobbyray21
oh ok. somebody had said that earlier
new question: how is every NCAA player going to negotiate his own license fee? that's going to be a cluster frick
how will he maintain his NCAA eligibility? jeremy bloom is a pretty strong precedent that they can't do this
new question: how is every NCAA player going to negotiate his own license fee? that's going to be a cluster frick
how will he maintain his NCAA eligibility? jeremy bloom is a pretty strong precedent that they can't do this
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
my question is if this suit is about the likeness rights they lost AFTER they stopped playing, what are we talking about, exactly? how many times are college players still on college games AFTER they stop playing?
Actually that's what the big battle is about I believe. Plaintiffs want the suit to be classified as a class action so they can bring in current players as well. I could have misread that though.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
at one time, neither was making the illogical argument that one party is so powerful that the other becomes a retard when it comes time to agree to that particular contract, but the concept of an adhesionary contract proved that policy was possible
The argument is only illogical because of the way you stated it.
Have you seen the humancentipad South Park episode? Non-enforcement of boilerplate form language is completely logical in lots of situations.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:17 pm to jacks40
quote:
Actually that's what the big battle is about I believe. Plaintiffs want the suit to be classified as a class action so they can bring in current players as well. I could have misread that though.
Exactly. And the judge already gave a bit of foreshadowing that she's gonna certify the class. The hearing is in late June, I believe.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
new question: how is every NCAA player going to negotiate his own license fee? that's going to be a cluster fuc
If EA had to negotiate this with each player, they just wouldn't make the game.
quote:
how will he maintain his NCAA eligibility? jeremy bloom is a pretty strong precedent that they can't do this
Put the money in trust.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:19 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
The argument is only illogical because of the way you stated it.
if a person is capable of contracting, he's capable of contracting
the assumption of a contract of adhesion is that sometimes people "go full retard" and temporarily cannot contract
quote:
Non-enforcement of boilerplate form language is completely logical in lots of situations.
there is pretty strong caselaw that these contracts are fully enforceable.
if you don't like it, don't use the products
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:20 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
If EA had to negotiate this with each player, they just wouldn't make the game.
and that's what would happen. everybody loses (especially women's sports)
quote:
Put the money in trust.
the players are still receiving money for their likeness, which makes them ineligible
Nike can't pay a player to endorse Nike and get around teh rules by putting the money in a trust
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News