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

# 161 Exonerated @ 05/25/10 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjv31_OS


	How many NFL games were made before the exclusive deal with EA? Did any of those leave out teams? This is not an issue.

I think on the contrary. Before this potential ruling the NFL was considered a single entity and able to license out all its trademarks and copyrights. After this, how can the NFL possibly give license to and video game maker?

Again this isn't really about exclusively licensing per se but the NFL as a single entity. So really, the NFL can't license out anything. You have to approach each individual club.

IF
American Needle wins in the lower courts.

# 162 dickey1331 @ 05/25/10 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exonerated


	I think on the contrary. Before this *potential ruling* the NFL was considered a single entity and able to license out all its trademarks and copyrights. After this, how can the NFL possibly give license to and video game maker? Again this isn't really about exclusively licensing per se but the NFL as a single entity. So really, the NFL can't license out anything. You have to approach each individual club. IF American Needle wins in the lower courts.

That is how it was before but the NFL got greedy and thought the could push this single entity thing. What do you mean IF American Needle wins? The lower courts arent going to go against the Supreme Court.

# 163 Rocky @ 05/25/10 03:21 AM

My question is, for Madden '12, does EA have to go out and license all 32 teams individually now on top of paying for that exclusive NFL license?

That would be a beautiful kick in the nuts.

# 164 TracerBullet @ 05/25/10 03:21 AM

You know, reading around some different sites today I found that more people than I ever would have thought would actually be interested in buying a licensed game for just their team.

# 165 Rocky @ 05/25/10 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimixiii


	They are also clearly saying this & I quote "when selling branded items like jerseys & caps" they are also using words like "apparel" which are the exact words they just used on NFL Network when breaking this news. They would have mentioned gaming if it was relevant to the case, especially knowing how big of an issue the exclusive license is along with the details of how this affect clothing distribution & merchandise.

So if 989 came up to the Steelers and offered them a ridiculous amount of money to put them in Gameday 12, how would this not apply as well?

# 166 Nza @ 05/25/10 03:45 AM

This has the potential to make sports gaming in general, not just NFL, quite complicated. Really though, I can't see any developer wanting an exclusive license for a particular team, unless they are prepared to spend the money to get an exclusive deal with every team, which would be a mammoth task to organize and maintain.

If EA, for instance, try and get the Cowboys and Patriots etc exclusively, it just leaves them open to someone else getting the Bills and Jaguars exclusively for cheaper, and this hurts both games.

So you hope common sense prevails and teams opt to not sell exclusively, and game companies opt not to pursue exclusive deals with particular teams. For licensing matters that involve all 32 teams such as videogames, maybe a NFLPA equivalent should be formed, existing to handle licensing matters where all 32 teams are involved only.

# 167 jdr4693 @ 05/25/10 03:55 AM

I think the EA NFL License has been more of a strain on the company than anything. I don't think they'll bother going through all the obstacles to keep the rights to individual teams.

# 168 Nza @ 05/25/10 04:14 AM

I don't think the lack of specifically stating gaming as being included means much. The concept is clear - the NFL can't sell all 32 licenses as a single entity. Why would gaming being excluded from this? At least, why should it be assumed to be? Gaming wasn't mentioned because gaming wasn't in focus, but obviously rulings don't always influence what is in focus at the time.

I think the language you should be looking for is gaming being specifically excluded from this, which it was not. It could still be, but until it is, I don't see any reason why it should be assumed.

# 169 Nza @ 05/25/10 04:18 AM

....Not sure what other 2K projects has to do with NFL2K. That's like saying why want the next FIFA because of Madden.

# 170 jp7588 @ 05/25/10 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenReign86


	Why does everyone want 2K to start making football games again? I mean c'mon now, you need not look any farther then at MLB 2k and NHL 2k, and the utter failures that they are. 2k has done a worse job with the next gen platforms then EA has, if they were to make an NFL game again it would be at least 2x worse then Madden.

I really hate to be the one to take the bait... But...

WTF are you talking about?

# 171 PVarck31 @ 05/25/10 04:33 AM

I think the bottom line here is that NO ONE understands how this will affect gaming, if at all. I guess we will just have to see how it plays out.

# 172 Exonerated @ 05/25/10 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nza


	I don't think the lack of specifically stating gaming as being included means much. The concept is clear - the NFL can't sell all 32 licenses as a single entity. Why would gaming being excluded from this? At least, why should it be assumed to be? Gaming wasn't mentioned because gaming wasn't in focus, but obviously rulings don't always influence what is in focus at the time. I think the language you should be looking for is gaming being specifically excluded from this, which it was not. It could still be, but until it is, I don't see any reason why it should be assumed.

It has to specifically state gaming or imply gaming to be involved in such a law. Like the colleague above said, clothing, equipment and apparel. That is a class of items. In no way does video gaming come into that class.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but since theres no mention or implication of video gaming in it, then an EA lawyer would definitely argue the point.

It is assumed not to be included because the case refers to a specific genus of items.

If gaming isn't in focus, then it isn't affected unless the Judges make an obiter statement referencing gaming.

As said before, clothing and apparrel are the key words here.

It may just sound like semantics but the law is very specific. There is an avenue to argue on since the SC said apparel and clothes.

An according to law, the mentioning of one class excludes another. Since we are getting the vibe of clothing and apparel, video games are omitted.

Yeah, I repeated myself a few times but i think you get the point.

# 173 PVarck31 @ 05/25/10 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exonerated


	It has to specifically state gaming or imply gaming to be involved in such a law. Like the colleague above said, clothing, equipment and apparel. That is a class of items. In no way does video gaming come into that class. I'm not saying you're wrong, but since theres no mention or implication of video gaming in it, then an EA lawyer would definitely argue the point. It is assumed not to be included because the case refers to a specific genus of items. If gaming isn't in focus, then it isn't affected unless the Judges make an obiter statement referencing gaming. As said before, clothing and apparrel are the key words here. It may just sound like semantics but the law is very specific. There is an avenue to argue on since the SC said apparel and clothes. An according to law, the mentioning of one class excludes another. Since we are getting the vibe of clothing and apparel, video games are omitted. Yeah, I repeated myself a few times but i think you get the point.

Hey EX, doesn't it mention "merchandise"? This would include video games. Im 99.9% sure of that.

# 174 dickey1331 @ 05/25/10 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exonerated


	It has to specifically state gaming or imply gaming to be involved in such a law. Like the colleague above said, clothing, equipment and apparel. That is a class of items. In no way does video gaming come into that class. I'm not saying you're wrong, but since theres no mention or implication of video gaming in it, then an EA lawyer would definitely argue the point. It is assumed not to be included because the case refers to a specific genus of items. If gaming isn't in focus, then it isn't affected unless the Judges make an obiter statement referencing gaming. As said before, clothing and apparrel are the key words here. It may just sound like semantics but the law is very specific. There is an avenue to argue on since the SC said apparel and clothes. An according to law, the mentioning of one class excludes another. Since we are getting the vibe of clothing and apparel, video games are omitted. Yeah, I repeated myself a few times but i think you get the point.

Video games are considered merchendise which would include clothing, equipment and apparel.

# 175 Nza @ 05/25/10 04:47 AM

Whether or not games can be covered by the language in this case specifically isn't the end all anyway - the precedent this sets is at least enough to open up a formal challenge to the exclusive gaming deal.

# 176 Exonerated @ 05/25/10 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjv31_OS


	Hey EX, doesn't it mention "merchandise"? This would include video games. Im 99.9% sure of that.

But it mentions clothing, apparel and equipment if I'm not mistaken.

So, video games are not merchandise as implied by the Court pertaining to this particular case.

# 177 Exonerated @ 05/25/10 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dickey1331


	Video games are considered merchendise which would include clothing, equipment and apparel.

Clothing, equipment and apparel. Definitely not video games if those are the exact terms of the judgment.

# 178 jp7588 @ 05/25/10 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenReign86


	I'm just saying that just because NFL 2k5 was a good game does not mean that if they were to make an NFL game again it would be nearly as good as it's predecessor. And using other 2k games as an example. However, there is no way to really find out unless they start making football games again.

I just don't see the correlation between a couple of average to below-average games and one of the most highly regarded sports gaming series of all time. And the argument especially doesn't make sense to me considering the fact that all of EA's next gen efforts in FOOTBALL have been disappointing. Besides, 2K has already released a football game on this generation of consoles. And it played a pretty damn good game of football. Their NBA series is still a notch ahead of Live and their College B-ball games were butt-****ing fantastic. I just don't see why anyone would have reason to believe that the NFL 2K series wouldn't be able to bounce back and compete in the quality department. I mean... 2X worse than Madden?! There's no way you could be serious about that.

I'd personally love to see 2K get back on the NFL horse, along with anyone else who'd be willing to make an NFL game. I never enjoyed the series, but I'd be all for seeing an NFL Quarterback Club 2012. Or imagine an NFL Gameday 2012 made by SCE San Diego, the same guys who do such a great job with The Show. There's no guarantee that these games would be great... But who the hell cares? The good games will succeed and the bad games will tank. The competition will breed innovation (something that has been really lacking this gen) and we'll all be happy. 2K guys won't have a reason to bitch on Madden forums and vice-versa.

A world in which we have multiple NFL games to choose from sounds like such a utopian idea it's strange to think that just six years ago this utopia was reality.

# 179 dickey1331 @ 05/25/10 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exonerated


	Clothing, equipment and apparel. Definitely not video games if those are the exact terms of the judgment.

Yes but this case had nothing to do with video games which is why it was not mentioned but the Reebok deal and EAs deal is similar in which they are the only ones that can make an NFL type product and if the SC is going to say the NFL cant do that with Reebok than the deal with EA will most likely face the same situation. The SC ruled that the NFL is not a single entity and cannot have one big deal with one company which is what EA did. One of the justices said something to the line of a Red Sox fan would not wear a Yankee shirt if you gave it to them for free. Obviously this isnt about baseball but you get the point. Me being a Cowboys fan, Im not going to wear a Giants uniform. If the NFL was one entity then I wouldnt have a problem with wearing a Giants uniform.

# 180 Exonerated @ 05/25/10 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dickey1331


	Yes but this case had nothing to do with video games which is why it was not mentioned but the Reebok deal and EAs deal is similar in which they are the only ones that can make an NFL type product and if the SC is going to say the NFL cant do that with Reebok than the deal with EA will most likely face the same situation. The SC ruled that the NFL is not a single entity and cannot have one big deal with one company which is what EA did. One of the justices said something to the line of a Red Sox fan would not wear a Yankee shirt if you gave it to them for free. Obviously this isnt about baseball but you get the point. Me being a Cowboys fan, Im not going to wear a Giants uniform.

If video games were relvant it would have been mentioned in the Judge's obiter dicta. Or it would have been a passing reference to have any real judicial precedent.

Also. The NFL's agreement with EA is materially different from that of Reebok.
The 32 clubs did not band together to freeze out 2K sports. The NFL did however, band together and freeze out Reebok.

Also, the 32 copyrights and trademarks of the 32 football teams do not act independently with regards to football games. The 32 football teams operate independently with their distribution of clothes, equipment and apparel.

That is why EA's exclusive license with the NFL is not part of the judge's passing comments in this decision.

What you are suggesting is that the NFL cannot license out a video game license at all, in essence having EA contact each football team and arrange a licensing price.

Also, the NFL's videogame license affects only 1 product, a football game that is not independent. However, NFL's exclusive deal with Reebok affects the independent operation of each NFL club.

« Previous 1 2…6 7 8910 11 12…16 17 Next »

More Links

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