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

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by thudias

They run the risk anyway..And..you would have to sue them all. it will all become hearsay (he said..she said)..no actually proof unless one team caves. Which they will all be represented by high priced lawyers so thats not going to happen. The league will become more unified because of this ruling on items they want to protect like TV contracts..Hats and Jersey maybe not so tightly protected.

LOL. The proof will be in each teams actions. If all 32 teams decided to ban together and not work with anyone but EA or Reebok....they will get sued again and lose. If they decide to only license to select vendors like Nike and Reebok, the court will ask why AN is being excluded and they wont have a sufficient response to avoid an antitrust case.

The only way to get around this is if the NFL raises the license fee so high that only a select number of companies can afford to purchase one. The problem with that is most companies wont pay a ridiculous amount for a license if there isnt any exclusivity attached to it.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by doctorhay53

Where do video games fall under this? Broadcasting? apparel and team merchandise? This court ruling only applies to branded items like hats and jerseys. It seems probable that on the precedence set by this case, video game makers could have a legit shot at winning in court. But how long will it take to affect gamers? 5 years? 10 years? I'm not excited yet. There is a long way to go to have real competition in the NFL gaming market. This ruling MAY be a step in that direction, but it may not. Time will tell. In one sense I am happy the NFL lost. But I'm still worried about alot of aspects of this.

Video games fall under merchandise. The NFL itself calls Madden NFL merchandise.

[doctorhay53]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

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.

Your logic is perfect....except one of your assumptions I'm not certain is correct. Are video games team merchandise? Even if this ruling applies directly to video games, there are significant problems for game DEVELOPERS trying to jump into this market without 32 teams and the NFLPA support. I don't believe there is any antitrust situation that can force the NFLPA to sell it's license to anyone. And what if there are 4 developers wanting to make games, but they can't get more than 20 teams to sign on? Do you really think they will all just make a game with 20 teams and 12 fake ones, with no real players? Realistically I see a small chance that this ruling leads to 2K (only) getting back in on the market 5 years or more from now. Maybe.

[thudias]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

LOL. The proof will be in each teams actions. If all 32 teams decided to ban together and not work with anyone but EA or Reebok....they will get sued again and lose. If they decide to only license to select vendors like Nike and Reebok, the court will ask why AN is being excluded and they wont have a sufficient response to avoid an antitrust case. The only way to get around this is if the NFL raises the license fee so high that only a select number of companies can afford to purchase one. The problem with that is most companies wont pay a ridiculous amount for a license if there isnt any exclusivity attached to it.

Ok fine so they make it appear like they tried to work with "other" companies..still tough to prove. They will not be as blatant as they were against American Needles. So a few companies will sue the NFL (all 32 teams) will show they tried to negotiate other deals on the best efforts basis but in the end the company they colluded to go with all along will win the bid. After a while companies will stop suing.

[Nintari]

Quote: Originally Posted by doctorhay53

Your logic is perfect....except one of your assumptions I'm not certain is correct. Are video games team merchandise? Even if this ruling applies directly to video games, there are significant problems for game DEVELOPERS trying to jump into this market without 32 teams and the NFLPA support. I don't believe there is any antitrust situation that can force the NFLPA to sell it's license to anyone. And what if there are 4 developers wanting to make games, but they can't get more than 20 teams to sign on? Do you really think they will all just make a game with 20 teams and 12 fake ones, with no real players? Realistically I see a small chance that this ruling leads to 2K getting back in on the market 5 years or more from now. Maybe.

Five years or more? What? At the latest it would be at the end of the current contract. At the earliest, next year though that would all depend on whether or not they could develop their game in time (something I doubt but who knows).

See, the thing here is, if it's now illegal for exclusive deals, I believe all current exclusive deals would be nullified under the law. But even if I'm wrong, it won't last past this current deal which means at the latest, we'll see a new game at the end of the this one.

[ODogg]

The question now is do we run the risk of seeing so many NFL video games that the products become garbage and the license means much less. We as consumers may go from one extreme to the other.

[doctorhay53]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nintari

Five years or more? What? At the latest it would be at the end of the current contract. At the earliest, next year though that would all depend on whether or not they could develop their game in time (something I doubt but who knows). See, the thing here is, if it's now illegal for exclusive deals, I believe all current exclusive deals would be nullified under the law. But even if I'm wrong, it won't last past this current deal which means at the latest, we'll see a new game at the end of the this one.

I was accounting for court time, as I believe the NFL and EA will try to renew their deal before 2012 is over.

[Tyrant8RDFL]

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.

Maybe it will be something were royalties will be divided evenly to all 32 teams.

Exactly how was it done iin the past, before the exclusive deal came into play, maybe it will just go back to that format.

That would be great, and we can now have choices in which NFL game to buy.