EA Sports Legal Woes May Impact NCAA Football Video Game Re-Launch

The Brandr Group, a brand management, marketing, and licensing agency that negotiates group licensing deals for over 50 Division I schools, is suing EA Sports over name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals being offered to athletes for the forthcoming EA Sports College Football video game. The lawsuit alleges that EA Sports is “causing irreparable harm” by offering “far below market value” in compensation to athletes’ NIL rights. The filing also claimed that the total compensation pool for institutions could be 10% of the game’s revenue, with guaranteed payments based on a program’s prominence. Before the game’s release, the College Football Players Association called for a boycott.

The future of the game, currently titled EA Sports College Football, is slated for a 2024 Summer release. EA Sports has decided to work with OneTeam Partners to offer more deals to athletes, but The Brandr Group has challenged this decision and is arguing that it should still be allowed to negotiate any contracts or deals for athletes at the schools it represents. The lawsuit does not concern the reported $500 offer or any college athletes.

Fan Reaction is Mixed

The general reaction on Twitter to The Brandr Group’s lawsuit against EA Sports has been mixed. Some users supported The Brandr Group’s efforts to protect athletes’ rights and ensure fair compensation for their NIL rights. Other users questioned the motives behind the lawsuit and suggested that The Brandr Group was simply trying to protect its own interests. Some users also expressed concern about the impact of the lawsuit on the future of college football and the ability of athletes to benefit from their NIL rights.

There is no way around this issue….@EASPORTS will be held up for ransom every year they make the game.

Just use fake names and let the users sort out rosters like we did for years.

— Jason Ziernicki (@jziernick) June 20, 2023

Overall, the lawsuit filed by The Brandr Group against EA Sports highlights the ongoing debate over the use of college athletes’ NIL rights in video games and other commercial ventures. While some argue that athletes should be fairly compensated for their participation in these ventures, others question the legal and ethical implications of such compensation arrangements. As the case moves forward, it will be interesting to see how the courts and the public respond to the various arguments presented by both sides.