<p>Former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others have won a multimillion dollar settlement from a video game maker and a jersey/uniform licensee. The NCAA is a co-defendant in the litigation but reportedly has refused to settle.</p>
<p>I don't know if there is an equitable solution to this matter because while it's clear that big time college athletics exists mostly to support itself financially and not students, should that alone be justification for compensating the players? Is it fair to claim that a "free" college education is payment enough, when the demands of big time sports keeps the players away from campus days on end? Do the fans of college sports come to see the players perform, or to support their college? In other words, are players entertainers whom should be compensated as such?</p>
<p>The only certainly about this case is...there's BILLIONS OF DOLLARS at stake, judging by the TV contracts signed in recent years by the NCAA.</p>
<p>“Is it fair to claim that a “free” college education is payment enough, when the demands of big time sports keeps the players away from campus days on end?”</p>
<p>IMHO, the fairness depends not on how much of the education the players get to enjoy, but on what aspects of the player the school is selling.</p>
<p>I think reasonable minds can differ as to jerseys with a player’s name – though I’d like to see players get a royalty on those – but I just can’t see the university’s side of the argument when it comes to selling images of a player’s face and body to video game companies. That’s him! </p>
<p>“Do the fans of college sports come to see the players perform, or to support their college?”</p>
<p>It’s to see the players perform. If it weren’t, then there would be a whole lot more parity across sports – and across genders in the same sport. You also wouldn’t see stark drop-offs in attendance in years when the team is crummy. Let’s get real. A football game may get literally 10,000 times as many spectators as a wrestling meet at the same campus. They’re all State U Tigers, but some get support and others don’t.</p>
<p>Get rid of big-money college sports, period. It’s a farce-- why are taxpayers & higher education subsidizing the mega-wealthy NFL, NBA? Develop pro-football/basketball players in a minor league, like baseball does. </p>
<p>The biggest winners in this lawsuit are the lawyers and not the athletes. Figuring that the lawyers’ fees will be 30% of the 40 million settlement, and it will be split between 250,000 athletes, then each athlete would receive $112. Also note that since the NCAA will no longer license its name to EA sports this potential source of revenue for the athletes will end.</p>
<p>Regarding #3, The big money sports are not the ones that concern me. They are self sufficient financially, and usually generate a lot of school spirit and alumni following. </p>
<p>Its the smaller money-losing sports I wonder about. Why are colleges supporting these with budgets and scholarships? I think it would be better for colleges to devote these resources to fitness activities for all students. The smaller sports can be club teams.</p>