Operation Sports Logo Header
Home
Operation Sports Logo Header
News Post

American Needle Won! NFL Exclusive Deals May Be A Thing Of The Past

  11:13 AM - May 24, 2010 by aholbert32

Check out the coverage at ESPN.

Quote:
"WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday turned away the National Football League's request for broad antitrust law protection, ruling that the league can be considered 32 separate teams -- not one big business -- when it comes to selling branded items like jerseys and caps.
The high court unanimously reversed a lower court ruling throwing out an antitrust suit brought against the league by one of its former hat makers, who was upset that it lost its contract for making official NFL hats to Reebok.

American Needle, Inc. sued, claiming the league violated antitrust law because all 32 teams worked together to freeze it out of the NFL-licensed hatmaking business. The company lost and appealed to the Supreme Court but the NFL did as well, hoping to get broader protection from antitrust lawsuits.

Major League Baseball is the only professional sports league with broad antitrust protection. The National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, the NCAA, NASCAR, professional tennis and Major League Soccer supported the NFL in this case, hoping the high court would expand broad antitrust exemption to other sports.

The Supreme Court turned away the league's theory that its 32 teams operate as one business, and sent American Needle's antitrust lawsuit back to the lower court.

"Decisions by NFL teams to license their separately owned trademarks collectively and to only one vendor are decisions that 'deprive the marketplace of independent centers of decisionmaking ... and therefore of actual or potential competition," said the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court."

Member Comments
# 41 Exonerated @ 05/24/10 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Posse512
You should go back and see how many companies made NFL branded apparel prior to their exclusive deal with Reebok. Off the top of my head I can name Wilson, Adidas, Nike, Russell, Champion and many more. The Dallas Cowboys had an exclusive apparel deal with Nike prior to the NFL deciding to go exclusive. Like someone else mentioned about guys like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder loving the opportunity sign their own individual apparel contracts. Teams like the Bills, Browns and Jaguars would just have to find cheaper deals for themselves.
Yeah I concur. I was just saying that you won't get cheaper jerseys because two companies could make one jersey for a team. ( i was replying to someone earlier)
 
# 42 Sigma4Life @ 05/24/10 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhay53
Here is the problem with that ruling....if the 32 NFL teams are to be considered completely separate entities, this is actually quite bad for NFL games. We will end up with 27 real teams and then 5 'Dallas Lonestars'. Negotiating with every single team individually will become completely impossible, way overexpensive, and just plain impossible. This is not the route that helps us as football video gamers, but that's just my opinion obviously.
I disagree. The ruling clearly states that the league can still make collective decisions where it makes sense. They just can't stifle competition in the process. The NFL surely does not want any video games that misrepresent the league.

I think any future NFL video game licenses will continue to include all 32 teams so that the NFL brand as a whole is properly represented. For items such as video games, TV contracts, etc, it's more beneficial for all 32 teams to work together than to compete.

Check out this excerpt from the article:

Quote:
The league argued that a court decision against it "would convert every league of separately owned clubs into a walking antitrust conspiracy" and bring legal challenges to any decisions that the teams make collectively like scheduling.

But Stevens disagreed.

"The fact that NFL teams share an interest in making the entire league successful and profitable, and that they must cooperate in the production and scheduling of games, provides a perfectly sensible justification for making a host of collective decisions," he said.
A license with ALL 32 teams is worth much more than the sum of it's parts. No one cares how popular the Cowboys are. I love the Cowboys, but I won't buy any game unless it includes every team from the Cowboys down to the Browns.
 
# 43 Rocky @ 05/24/10 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhay53
Here is the problem with that ruling....if the 32 NFL teams are to be considered completely separate entities, this is actually quite bad for NFL games. We will end up with 27 real teams and then 5 'Dallas Lonestars'. Negotiating with every single team individually will become completely impossible, way overexpensive, and just plain impossible. This is not the route that helps us as football video gamers, but that's just my opinion obviously.
To be honest, I would take this every day over having only 1 football videogame to choose from. I can create 5 teams...but only having 1 game to choose from because there is no profitability in an unlicensed game is terrible imo.
 
# 44 coogrfan @ 05/24/10 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhay53
Here is the problem with that ruling....if the 32 NFL teams are to be considered completely separate entities, this is actually quite bad for NFL games. We will end up with 27 real teams and then 5 'Dallas Lonestars'. Negotiating with every single team individually will become completely impossible, way overexpensive, and just plain impossible. This is not the route that helps us as football video gamers, but that's just my opinion obviously.
Hmm. If memory serves, one of rationales applied by the lower courts to support the "NFL as single entity" argument was that the individual teams could not operate in a vaccum:

Quote:
The Seventh Circuit explained that sports leagues are difficult to classify because they display elements of a single entity, as well as elements of a joint venture made up of independent owners. The Seventh Circuit, therefore, determines whether a sports league is a single entity "one league at a time" and "one facet of a league at a time."

In this case, the NFL was a single entity for the purpose of promoting its football product -- because no one team can stage a game alone. It followed that if the NFL was a single entity for promoting football, it was also a single entity for promoting its product by selling NFL apparel. Additionally, the Court noted that the record established that the NFL teams had been acting as a single entity for IP licensing since 1963.
SCOTUS seems to have rejected this reasoning as it applies to apparel, but I'm not sure it wouldn't be applicable to something like a video game.
 
# 45 J_Posse @ 05/24/10 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soodmeg
Except the fact that everyone used to do it before.

You act as though it has always been like this, do you not remember when there were up to 4 or 5 football video games out at a time? Come on dont over react to it.

Teams will be want to be in every football game they can because they get money both ways from it. From a developer paying for their rights and then royalties on each one that they sell.

You guys are are forgetting that no one will buy a Dallas Cowboys video game. So its in both parties best interest to work something out.
Exactly, no one brand in the NFL is strong enough to support a video game without the rest. Would people really purchase a game with only Redskin, Patriot or Cowboy players? What would you do in said game run scrimmages and practice? The only thing this possibly guarantees is that one (Madden NFL) or maybe two games will have the NFLPA's official license.
 
# 46 PantherBeast_OS @ 05/24/10 01:00 PM
Well even tho American Needle might have won. I'm sure the NFL will appeal it in a higher court. So this ruling would not really hurt the NFL and EA from making another agreement in a few years for a new contract between each other. I mean if it's good for other companies to get access to all of the nfl teams to make a better game then madden. By all means go ahead. It would be nice see other companies that would go agaist Ea for a change to make EA do better job on madden. I mean madden 11 is looking real real good right now. But I'm just saying more companies = better products in the end of the day. But good luck to who all are envolved in this lawsuit. I hope all parties are happy in the end including fans.
 
# 47 coogrfan @ 05/24/10 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legend Killer
Well even tho American Needle might have won. I'm sure the NFL will appeal it in a higher court.

Somebody wasn't paying attention in civics class...

 
# 48 Sigma4Life @ 05/24/10 01:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legend Killer
Well even tho American Needle might have won. I'm sure the NFL will appeal it in a higher court. So this ruling would not really hurt the NFL and EA from making another agreement in a few years for a new contract between each other. I mean if it's good for other companies to get access to all of the nfl teams to make a better game then madden. By all means go ahead. It would be nice see other companies that would go agaist Ea for a change to make EA do better job on madden. I mean madden 11 is looking real real good right now. But I'm just saying more companies = better products in the end of the day. But good luck to who all are envolved in this lawsuit. I hope all parties are happy in the end including fans.
Ummm, which court is that? Super Duper Supreme Court? There is no higher court in the United States!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme..._United_States

First line states:
Quote:
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States
 
# 49 doctorhay53 @ 05/24/10 01:05 PM
Let me rephrase what I was trying to say.

If we really are looking for multiple fully-licensed NFL video games, this ruling is not the answer. For one, it doesn't seem likely that this ruling will in any way require or even coax the NFL into not renewing it's NFL exclusivity agreement with EA. For another thing, I honestly believe the costs involved for companies TODAY to have all 32 teams agree individually is astronomically higher than it was in the past. I think it will be a deterrent to new companies desiring to make fully-licensed NFL games. You might see 2k get back into the market, but I wouldn't ever expect to see 3-4 different companies making licensed games under that model.

My only contrary point was to claim that this ruling doesn't seem to benefit us as football gamers in any tangible way, and I don't see it making any difference in the near future.
 
# 50 J_Posse @ 05/24/10 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legend Killer
Well even tho American Needle might have won. I'm sure the NFL will appeal it in a higher court. So this ruling would not really hurt the NFL and EA from making another agreement in a few years for a new contract between each other. I mean if it's good for other companies to get access to all of the nfl teams to make a better game then madden. By all means go ahead. It would be nice see other companies that would go agaist Ea for a change to make EA do better job on madden. I mean madden 11 is looking real real good right now. But I'm just saying more companies = better products in the end of the day. But good luck to who all are envolved in this lawsuit. I hope all parties are happy in the end including fans.
There is no higher court than the Supreme Court. Why do you think EA was one of the NFL's biggest supporters during the hearings. Also, the current deal expires in 2012. That means if the two sides do agree on another extension the NFL could be sent to court again by someone like 2K, Midway or another gaming publisher. They could file a lawsuit seeking to re-enter the market with an officially licensed NFL product.

Quote:
If we really are looking for multiple fully-licensed NFL video games, this ruling is not the answer. For one, it doesn't seem likely that this ruling will in any way require or even coax the NFL into not renewing it's NFL exclusivity agreement with EA.
The current ruling could easily be re-applied to other merchandise like video games. What would stop a publisher from filing suit when they now have this as grounds?
 
# 51 Sigma4Life @ 05/24/10 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhay53
Let me rephrase what I was trying to say.

If we really are looking for multiple fully-licensed NFL video games, this ruling is not the answer. For one, it doesn't seem likely that this ruling will in any way require or even coax the NFL into not renewing it's NFL exclusivity agreement with EA. For another thing, I honestly believe the costs involved for companies TODAY to have all 32 teams agree individually is astronomically higher than it was in the past. I think it will be a deterrent to new companies desiring to make fully-licensed NFL games. You might see 2k get back into the market, but I wouldn't ever expect to see 3-4 different companies making licensed games under that model.

My only contrary point was to claim that this ruling doesn't seem to benefit us as football gamers in any tangible way, and I don't see it making any difference in the near future.
So your saying we'd be better off if the NFL was legally allowed to do exclusive deals? Any way you look at it we are much more likely to have multiple NFL games today than we were yesterday. If nothing else, the NFL and EA have to take notice and think twice about renewing their exclusive deal. The government is obligated to at least take a look at any big exclusive deals the NFL is involved in because of this ruling.
 
# 52 thmst30 @ 05/24/10 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODogg
This may not be as great of a thing as you guys think. I wonder if we'll see 2K licensing Buffalo Bills football with the Bills, Browns and other types of teams in the game but teams like the Patriots, Steelers and Cowboys missing. Will this mean individual teams can license out whatever they want and the NFL license is no longer needed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by King_B_Mack
This could be one of those bittersweet things. The only thing that would make it sweet would be seeing the elimination of exclusive licenses on these games. The bitter part would be that a company would have to seperately negotiate with each team in order to get them into their game. If I'm not mistaken about this, which I don't think I'am. We could all get what we want, but get something much worse at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exonerated
Wow a Madden with only 15 teams but all correct player names. Sounds bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhay53
Here is the problem with that ruling....if the 32 NFL teams are to be considered completely separate entities, this is actually quite bad for NFL games. We will end up with 27 real teams and then 5 'Dallas Lonestars'. Negotiating with every single team individually will become completely impossible, way overexpensive, and just plain impossible. This is not the route that helps us as football video gamers, but that's just my opinion obviously.

Read this part of the article.
Quote:
Major League Baseball is the only professional sports league with broad antitrust protection. The National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, the NCAA, NASCAR, professional tennis and Major League Soccer supported the NFL in this case, hoping the high court would expand broad antitrust exemption to other sports.
MLB is the only one with this type of antitrust protection. We have never had problems with NFL, NHL, NBA, or NCAA teams splitting up and choosing to be part of separate video games. The only limiting factor to other games was league-wide exclusive licenses; which may eventually come to an end across all of these sports as a potential result of this case. It would be in nobody's interest to make a game with only a few NFL teams, and it wouldn't be any NFL team's interest to refuse their license to an NFL game. Especially a game like Madden that sells millions of copies on a yearly basis. No NFL team would want to back out and lose that guaranteed exposure. I just don't see it happening.
 
# 53 RGiles36 @ 05/24/10 01:26 PM
LOL @ the 4-5 guys who corrected LKiller for saying there was a higher court than the Supreme Court! Funny stuff!
 
# 54 Pacman83 @ 05/24/10 01:31 PM
"So You're Saying There's A Chance..."

I'm hoping this means that someone steps up to add some competition. Things are getting better, but competition makes things happen, obviously.

Now that i think of it, if this means what I think it means, we could have 3 NFL football games in the next year or two....I wouldn't complain...
 
# 55 Blaise @ 05/24/10 01:31 PM
I honestly don't forsee this lawsuit affecting Madden in anyway, because as long as NFL Properties still exists, they are still going to be able to negotiate deals under "The Shield". What I think we may see happen is the NFL getting all 32 teams together on whatever issues effect the league as a whole(apparel, league sponorships, etc), voting on them, and still going with one company, just with separate contracts, or the teams agreeing to a contract with nfl prop, and them licensing out whatever it is to a single entity.

I disagree personally with the ruling, and I'm sure the MLB just crapped its pants.
 
# 56 aholbert32 @ 05/24/10 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhay53
Let me rephrase what I was trying to say.

If we really are looking for multiple fully-licensed NFL video games, this ruling is not the answer. For one, it doesn't seem likely that this ruling will in any way require or even coax the NFL into not renewing it's NFL exclusivity agreement with EA.

My only contrary point was to claim that this ruling doesn't seem to benefit us as football gamers in any tangible way, and I don't see it making any difference in the near future.
Actually it does. If the NFL reups its exclusive deal it runs the risk of a antitrust lawsuit from 2k, Microsoft, Sony etc.
 
# 57 doctorhay53 @ 05/24/10 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
Actually it does. If the NFL reups its exclusive deal it runs the risk of a antitrust lawsuit from 2k, Microsoft, Sony etc. The league loves it antitrust exemption and doesnt want to risk losing by fighting and losing several antitrust cases.
I don't believe it runs that risk, and I don't believe the NFL will see it that way, based on the wording of the ruling.
 
# 58 Sigma4Life @ 05/24/10 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhay53
I don't believe it runs that risk, and I don't believe the NFL will see it that way, based on the wording of the ruling.
It's not about how the NFL sees it. The NFL is now on the highest courts' radar. Any exclusive deals they do from here on out will be evaluated by the justice system. It'll be extremely easy for a lawsuit by 2k, Sony or MS to get taken seriously by the courts now. Basically the pendulum of power has swung the other way. Other game companies have plenty of legal fire power to attack the NFL if they do another exclusive deal.
 
# 59 thudias @ 05/24/10 01:45 PM
All this gives companies is the ability to negotiate separate deals..All NFL teams can and probably still will collude to lockout companies that give "The Shield" any issues (legal or otherwise). How many teams are going to negotiate with American Needle now? Probably none!
 
# 60 aholbert32 @ 05/24/10 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhay53
I don't believe it runs that risk, and I don't believe the NFL will see it that way, based on the wording of the ruling.
I'm sorry but you are just flat out wrong. This case focuses on two things: exclusive deals and merchandise. AN is arguing that the exclusive deal with Reebok is an antitrust violation. The high court just held thatThat exclusive deals of this sort violate the Sherman Act and should be held under antitrust scrutiny.

Video games are considered merchandise and all the NFL is doing is licensing their trademarks to a video game company (logos, helmets, names, uniforms). The high court clearly states that:

" Decisions by NFL teams to license their separately owned trademarks collectively and to only one vendor are decisions that 'deprive the marketplace of independent centers of decisionmaking ... and therefore of actual or potential competition."

Thats as clear as it gets. The NFL would be foolish to continue an exclusive licensing practice when the SC has clearly stated its a potential antitrust violation.
 


Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.