Update on Madden/ESPN rights for NFLPA.

[SirFozzie]

From Gamespot:

After a well-respected sports-industry magazine reports the sports-licensing deal of the century is in the works, NFLPA reps say the story has been retracted.

Two weeks ago, The Sports Business Journal, one of the most respected trade journals of the athletic entertainment business, revealed the identity of Madden NFL 2005 cover athlete Ray Lewis several days before EA Sports announced it.

Now it appears they may have broken one of the biggest rumors in the game industry's history.

The May 3 issue of the Journal contained a story with the headline "EA set to pay Players Inc. $1 billion." According to the article, Electronic Arts is in final negotiations with Players Inc., the NFL Players' Association marketing arm, to exclusively license all NFL player rights for the next four years. The Journal set the price tag of the deal at $250 million each year, which EA would pay Players Inc.; in other words, a literal billion-dollar contract.

Given the large sums reportedly at stake, the exclusivity of the EA/NLFPA deal would have been almost certainly strict. If such a deal were ever done, no non-EA Sports game could license NFL player likenesses--an almost certainly fatal blow to the Madden series' rivals, such as ESPN NFL Football.

When provided with excerpts from the article by GameSpot, EA Sports representatives promised to pass them along to "someone who can answer your questions." As of press time, no official confirmation or denial of the EA/NLFPA negotiations had been given by EA. However, off the record, one source close to the company called the story "way off."

While the The Sports Business Journal broke the story, it was, ironically, reprinted in the magazine ESPN. This prompted a moderator at ESPNvideogames.com to call the NFLPA. According to the moderator, NFLPA reps denied that anything other than "normal" licensing deals were in play.

When contacted by GameSpot, NFLPA executives said that not only was the story false, but that The Sports Business Journal has since run a retraction--something that will undoubtedly make fans of the ESPN NFL franchise breathe much easier.

[Hurst2112]

HAHAH!!!!

Funny, I don't feel like a dumbass for posting in the other thread.

[vex]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

From Gamespot: However, off the record, one source close to the company called the story "way off."

Gotta love those journalists integrity.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

HAHAH!!!!

Funny, I don't feel like a dumbass for posting in the other thread.

There are other ways to look like a dumbass.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by vexroid

Gotta love those journalists integrity.

If someone says something to the press, they expect it to be published. "Off the record" means, "Don't use my name"

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

There are other ways to look like a dumbass.

Yeah, I should show you a picture of me.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Samdari

If someone says something to the press, they expect it to be published. "Off the record" means, "Don't use my name"

Actually, they're two similar but different things.

"Don't use my name" means keep the source anonymous but report the information.

"Off the record" means "Background information that you're not to report, or are to report only after verifying it with a source who'll go on the record with it."

("Off the record" does not mean "I told you something, but now I've changed my mind and don't want you to use it". Only a very select few sources would ever be allowed to talk off the record.)

My guess is in this case the writer is just getting his terms mixed up. No harm no foul.

[Solecismic]

I think the lawyers involved in these discussions quickly realized the impending death of the goose with the golden eggs.

There's just no way naming rights would hold up to a serious court challenge.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think the lawyers involved in these discussions quickly realized the impending death of the goose with the golden eggs.

There's just no way naming rights would hold up to a serious court challenge.

Please explain...

Does that opinion have to do with the public figure thing?

[SirFozzie]

It's because the NFL has been granted a limited monopoly by Congress.