There is a concept in antitrust law

[ChicagoSparty]

known as the "relevant market." Generally, this is the market that is affected by the subject activity, and it is the focus of hotly-contested litigation in most antitrust cases.

So, the "relevant market" here could be said to be "football video games in general" or, say, "NFL football video games including NFLPA licensing." If the market is defined as the latter, obviously, an exclusive licensing agreement would face much greater scrutiny. If you define the market narrowly enough, EA's actions exclude ESPN completely from the "relevant market."

Understand that this is a very general explanation, but there seems to be some talk in here of lawsuits, so I thought this might be something people might want to know. Obviously, it is much more complicated than this (actually, very complicated), but for discussion purposes, it'll do.

[fashawks8]

So, the "relevant market" here could be said to be "football video games in general" or, say, "NFL football video games including NFLPA licensing." If the market is defined as the latter, obviously, an exclusive licensing agreement would face much greater scrutiny. If you define the market narrowly enough, EA's actions exclude ESPN completely from the "relevant market."


This would seem to be legal grounds for some kind of challenge. However, EA already did this with Nascar and that obviously went through. Were there any kind of legal challenges with that monopoly?

[knicks69]

Quote: Originally Posted by fashawks8

So, the "relevant market" here could be said to be "football video games in general" or, say, "NFL football video games including NFLPA licensing." If the market is defined as the latter, obviously, an exclusive licensing agreement would face much greater scrutiny. If you define the market narrowly enough, EA's actions exclude ESPN completely from the "relevant market." This would seem to be legal grounds for some kind of challenge. However, EA already did this with Nascar and that obviously went through. Were there any kind of legal challenges with that monopoly?

There is no anttitrust law involved here. The NFL & Players are a private entity.
They have a right to enter into any partnership they want to. Individual players
could say they do not want to be part of EA. Example Thurman Thomas or more recently Barry Bonds. The sad thing is for the fans of Sega Sports who
will have only one choice.

[ChicagoSparty]

Quote: Originally Posted by fashawks8

So, the "relevant market" here could be said to be "football video games in general" or, say, "NFL football video games including NFLPA licensing." If the market is defined as the latter, obviously, an exclusive licensing agreement would face much greater scrutiny. If you define the market narrowly enough, EA's actions exclude ESPN completely from the "relevant market." This would seem to be legal grounds for some kind of challenge. However, EA already did this with Nascar and that obviously went through. Were there any kind of legal challenges with that monopoly?

Probably not. But I really have no idea about the NASCAR series.

[JRod]

Quote: Originally Posted by knicks69

There is no anttitrust law involved here. The NFL & Players are a private entity. They have a right to enter into any partnership they want to. Individual players could say they do not want to be part of EA. Example Thurman Thomas or more recently Barry Bonds. The sad thing is for the fans of Sega Sports who will have only one choice.

EA Sports entered into this contract to specifically kill off competition not to make a better product through say a merger. Second just because the current law might not be adaquate to cover this issue, that doesn't mean Sega can't sue and set PRECEDENT.

This agreement's sole design is to kill of Sega Sports. I think Sega has a legitimate case but they really won't do a damn thing.

[cookusu]

I would say this is kind of new territory, something that may not have been provided for in previous cases.

It seems flat out wrong that you can virtually elminate your competition this way, it might be legal but it might end up back firing on them in the long run.

[NCHelix]

There is no antitrust violation at all here. First of all, like someone above me said, the NFL is entirely private. It doesn't apply.

Second of all, Sega Sports is not ALL out of buisness. They are out in one market of their buisness, it isn't enough to completely bring suit against EA.

Lastly, it's the same type of situation as when a videogame company sells licensing on a popular game soley to a console of choice, and could smash apart another console's market, there is no illegal action in that, and there isn't in this situation either.

Though it may suck for NFL videogame fans, there is no legal battle to be fought.

[ODogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by NCHelix

There is no antitrust violation at all here. First of all, like someone above me said, the NFL is entirely private. It doesn't apply. Second of all, Sega Sports is not ALL out of buisness. They are out in one market of their buisness, it isn't enough to completely bring suit against EA. Lastly, it's the same type of situation as when a videogame company sells licensing on a popular game soley to a console of choice, and could smash apart another console's market, there is no illegal action in that, and there isn't in this situation either. Though it may suck for NFL videogame fans, there is no legal battle to be fought.

Agreed, as someone else said in another thread, EA buying the rights from the NFL isn't a violation of anything anti-trust but like if EA bought all the game companies in the industry then it would be a violation. Despite the bad news this brings us gamers there's nothing illegal about it. And on a side note don't you guys realize EA must have like a city of lawyers..