Players suggest potential holdouts over NIL payouts for EA Sports College Football

ATLANTA – Within the locker room of one of college football’s blue-blood programs, players have discussed what their individual name, image and likeness rights might be worth if they choose to opt into EA Sports College Football and whether the sport’s marquee players might consider holding out for more money.

In May, On3’s Pete Nakos reported that the combined compensation for players who opt into the video game is expected to be roughly $5 million. That equates to roughly $500 per player.

So, what is fair compensation for FBS players if there’s a flat rate?

“That’s a tough one,” Oklahoma quarterback General Booty told On3 at the INFLCR NIL Summit. “We’ve actually been talking about that in the locker room. So, we’ve all talked about it because we want the game to come out, obviously. But we were saying if they come out and try to lowball and say we want to give everyone $200. Well, guys maybe like, like you mentioned Caleb Williams, may say no and then he’s not in the game. Then all the USC fans – who wants to buy the game and not play with him, you know?

“And then he does it, then someone else does it and then it’s a domino effect and then it’s ruined. So, I think that’s going to be very critical to how they put it together. They are going to have to have one price, and I say like $600 to $800 would get everyone in. But some of the big guys, you know, that deserve it, that have been playing, starting for a couple of years, put up the numbers, they may have to sit down and negotiate with them because that’s going to ruin the game if they don’t have some of these star guys in there.”

How might a theoretical mass holdout work?

Before a reporter finished asking Kansas‘s reigning All-Big 12 second-team quarterback Jalon Daniels whether or not he could see high-profile players, especially those with agents, trying to negotiate for more money, Daniels said that he could.

“Yes. Yes. I can definitely see that,” Daniels said. “I could definitely see it, especially with the highest college football players that are in the nation right now. If they’re getting paid as, you know, somebody who a lot of people really don’t know of and they’re the most known person in college football, I can definitely see their agent saying, ‘Alright, what’s going on here?'”

Stanford cornerback Terian Williams II agreed.

“I definitely can see that happening,” he said.

Booty said he can envision premier quarterbacks at major schools considering asking for greater licensing income, especially if they have an agent whose goal is to maximize their client’s value. From there, the number of players pursuing greater licensing fees could potentially snowball through group texts.

“I could see that happening,” Booty said. “It’s gonna take one person to do it and as soon as that happens, then it’s the next, the next, the next. One thing I will say is everyone wants to see the game come out. They want to be in the game. So, we want it to happen, you know. I just think it’s going to have to be fair. I don’t think people are going to come out asking for crazy numbers. But some guys aren’t going to want to get paid what maybe a third-string freshman’s getting paid, and I don’t blame them.”

What is fair compensation?

On3 spoke with nine FBS players at the INFLCR NIL Summit, sharing the reported per-player compensation of $500 with each player and then asking what they think would be fair compensation. Their answers varied. Booty’s suggested range of $600 to $800 was the highest specific number provided.

“I honestly think that $500 is a pretty good amount,” said Kansas running back Devin Neal, who earned All-Big 12 honorable mention honors last season.

For some players, their priority could simply be inclusion in the game.

“Obviously, just having the video game back itself would be OK with me,” UAB second-team All-Conference USA defensive tackle Fish McWilliams said. “I appreciate the NIL for the NCAA game. But I really just want to play the video game and just get it back out there cause it’s been gone for almost 10 years now.”

One of McWilliams’s teammates, honorable mention All-Conference USA wide receiver Tejhaun Palmer, concurred.

“Same thing he said,” Palmer said. “It’s a game I was playing as a kid, so it’d just be good to be in the game, honestly.”

Williams, the Stanford cornerback, said the compensation should be based on how often a team or player appears in the video game.

“I feel like some players should get paid more based off of how much their name, image and likeness is being used,” he said.

North Carolina defensive end/outside linebacker Kaimon Rucker said every player should receive the same compensation with the exception of the cover athlete or those who receive the highest overall player grades.

“Then I don’t see a problem with that at all,” he said.

It’ll ultimately be a personal decision for each player and anyone advising him.

“Every player gonna listen to what their agent is telling them,” Cincinnati defensive back Jordan Young said.

The business models behind licensing

Daniels brought up EA Sports’s business model, while also alluding to the varying values in NFL contracts.

“I couldn’t put a number on that value because honestly, it all just goes back to the business and what they have going on,” Daniels said. “I can’t put a number on the value for what they should pay college athletes or anything like that and also can’t say whether or not they should pay everybody evenly or not because you know in the NFL, they’re not paying everybody evenly. So, I don’t know what step to take on that.”

UCLA quarterback Chase Griffin was named Male Athlete of the Year at the 2022 INFLCR NIL Summit. Previously, he described his approach to NIL deals as only accepting cash or equity as compensation, rather than free product.

“I think whenever you talk about any type of revenue share, there has to be some equity in it,” Griffin said. “Not only, I think, a flat rate but any type of deal where you’re reusing the name, image and likeness, there’s gotta be some subsidiary payment. So, I think the next step is an equity deal with EA where the players who make those games possible have equity and a stake in the performance of the game.

“That’s how it is in every other talent business with residual licensing, you know with music or TV. If you’re an actor or you’re a producer or you’re an artist, the more streams, the more uses that your song gets or your show gets, you get paid off that. I think a similar model eventually, I think that’d be favorable for athletes and really in the business sense the most credible way to go about it.”

Of course, EA Sports could also enter into separate agreements with athletes to promote the game on social media. During an educational session with one FBS institution, an employee from the NIL technology company Opendorse shared that an NFL wide receiver received $6,250 for promoting an edition of the “Madden” franchise on Twitter.

With nostalgia, EA Sports could have leverage

Last year, Michigan State then-sixth-year senior offensive lineman Matt Carrick told On3 that “If EA Sports came out with ‘NCAA Football,’ I would be perfectly fine not getting paid and them just giving me a copy of the game. You know what I mean? I think it would just be cool enough just to be in the game.”

That might be the dynamic at play for many college football players, many of whom grew up playing the game, dreamt of being included in the video game someday and whose playing careers might peak at the college level. The fear of missing out on inclusion within the game, combined with the lack of a players association, could lead many players to opt-in regardless of the financial terms.

“Some athletes are gonna be normally used to five and six-figure deals but just to have their name in EA Sports, they may do it for the $500 that’s proposed,” Griffin said. “Other athletes may not make more than $500 on other deals but may feel like if their name’s being used in perpetuity that they’re worth more than the $500. I think it’s really up (to an athlete) on an individual basis.”