FanDuel - WFBC

October 08, 2008

NFL Union Screwing Players?: The folks over at ArsTechnica have focused on an interesting story: claims that the NFLPA and Players Inc. unilaterally made a decision to take $8 million dollars of the gross licensing revenue that should have been shared with retired players and reallocate it to the administration of the NFLPA and Players Inc.", while negotiating ridiculous royalities for older players.

"The per player price for most of these guys was tens of thousands of dollars less than what they were guaranteed by Take Two Interactive so it's a real coup that we were able to pull this off so cheaply," he wrote. "You have to remember that EA's total cost is only $200,000 per year. We know that Take Two offered six-figure deals to several former NFL players, so the total cost is millions below market prices."

posted by rodgerd to football at 11:04 PM - 9 comments

Wow. The NFLPA has clearly shown that they have absolute no interest in protecting the rights of retired players. What a freakin' disaster.

posted by bperk at 06:00 AM on October 09

I am amazed that NFLPA officials would be so stupid (or arrogant) as to brag about the deal in e-mails. While I realize the power of the NFL to influence legislation, courts, and the media, it would appear that the Players' Association has placed its neck in a noose and is waiting for some judge to play hangman.

Nice, informative post, rogerd.

posted by Howard_T at 10:09 AM on October 09

Good thing all the players are wearing those Gene Upshaw memorial patches, huh?

posted by wfrazerjr at 10:42 AM on October 09

once again Gene Upshaw has screwed the retired player, but what does he care? he is dead now!

posted by postalmayhem at 12:44 PM on October 09

Good thing all the players are wearing those Gene Upshaw memorial patches, huh?

posted by wfrazerjr at 10:42 AM

Yeah, fraz, but at least it is a little sticker on the back of the helmet instead of the big GU patch on the upper left front of the jersey. Much easier to ignore.

I wonder if we will be seeing more, if any players copyrighting their images, or having exclusive license for their likeness, signature, name, etc., etc. like Dale Earnhardt did. Then wouldn't EA have to deal with each player individually?

posted by steelergirl at 05:54 PM on October 09

I assume that they would steelergirl, but if any other games are any indication they either don't do it very often or some players just don't sign a deal. In an MVP baseball game the Giants' best player was named John Dowd and not Barry Bonds. Similarly, in recent editions of Madden neither Parcells or Belichick have been named, rather they have been called names like NE Coach.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 11:31 PM on October 09

Thanks for that bit of info YYM.

So I guess that is a double edged sword. If you have your name/image copyrighted, EA just works around you. Hmmmmm. IDK if Bonds, Parcells, and Belichick have trademarked themselves, but that would be why they aren't mentioned in the games, right?

posted by steelergirl at 03:03 AM on October 10

If you have your name/image copyrighted, EA just works around you. Hmmmmm. IDK if Bonds, Parcells, and Belichick have trademarked themselves, but that would be why they aren't mentioned in the games, right?

It's not a copyright or trademark issue, it has to do with rights of publicity -- basically, a right to control use of your name, likeness, and image for commercial purposes that arises under state law.

posted by holden at 04:04 PM on October 10

I always just assumed it was because they were such jerks that EA just didn't want them in their games.

posted by dviking at 02:50 PM on October 11

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.