Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

[Only1LT]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

I'm not stupid. I just want to play NFL/college football with real NFL/college teams.

So do most people, that's why they edit rosters. I'm not so free on my time, that I can do it all myself. I'll take a passable m11 over a perfect apf any day.

Are you sure about that lol? Kidding.

All I mean is that the mentality, in general, not specific to Football games, of name brands being better just because they are name brands, is stupid, and that plays a factor in people's purchases, including Madden.

It could even be a licensed Football game, but it would still have a hard time competing with Madden, because of its brand recognition. Take away the license, and you can just about turn the lights out lol.

[ODogg]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

LiquorLogic - and just how is the deal "illegal"???

[LiquorLogic]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

LiquorLogic - and just how is the deal "illegal"???

The NFL is not considered a single entity, so for them to give out an exclusive license is illegal. The NFL has done with Reebok and EA what Coca-Cola has done with McDonalds : they basically have formed partnerships, exclusively, with one another. The NFL only sells their rights to EA, and McDonald's only sells soft drinks sold by Coca-Cola. McDonald's is one entity, but the NFL is comprised of 32 separate entities. Any way you slice it, exclusive deals, with the NFL, are illegal. If every team in the league signs an exclusive deal with EA, locking out any other competitor, it's still collusion; the NFL would still be behaving as a single entity, and the deal would be illegal.

[ODogg]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

You are basing your entire logic on the decision of the American Needle case, a case in which even that court admitted the NFL could engage in some licensing as a single entity (***This is not a total loss for the NFL because the opinion says the League may engage in some activities as a single entity and disputes over those actions need to be judged on a case-by-case basis but "the activity at issue in this case is still concerted activity covered for [Sherman Antitrust Act] purposes.").

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/24/high-court-sacks-nfl-in-antitrust-dispute/

In the case of the NFL and EA it's mere semantics in regards to the agreement. It's seriously doubtful any team in the NFL would wish to be left out of the videogame and thus give up the marketing share. To bypass this aspect of the law EA and the NFL would only have to throw out the current agreement and put in place the same agreement as negotiated by all 32 teams individually instead of as a collective whole. That is if this particular agreement would even be found to be null and void which it has not, as of yet, been found to be..

[ODogg]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

Oh and just a note as well, the American Needle case applied specifically to that case and the NFL moving forward in how it does business. It did not strike down all in-place NFL contracts and agreements. That means that the current agreement is still legal and valid until a court says otherwise.

[LiquorLogic]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

You are basing your entire logic on the decision of the American Needle case, a case in which even that court admitted the NFL could engage in some licensing as a single entity (***This is not a total loss for the NFL because the opinion says the League may engage in some activities as a single entity and disputes over those actions need to be judged on a case-by-case basis but "the activity at issue in this case is still concerted activity covered for [Sherman Antitrust Act] purposes.").

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/24/high-court-sacks-nfl-in-antitrust-dispute/

In the case of the NFL and EA it's mere semantics in regards to the agreement. It's seriously doubtful any team in the NFL would wish to be left out of the videogame and thus give up the marketing share. To bypass this aspect of the law EA and the NFL would only have to throw out the current agreement and put in place the same agreement as negotiated by all 32 teams individually instead of as a collective whole. That is if this particular agreement would even be found to be null and void which it has not, as of yet, been found to be..

I'm basing my logic on the fact that the case with American Needle sets a precedent. In a lower court the case was originally thrown out. The reason why it was thrown out was because the NFL was considered a single entity, so they were exempt from anti-trust scrutiny. The SCOTUS now says they're not a single entity, which is a huge blow to the NFL's case.

The NFL may be able engage on some activities as a single entity, but they can't conspire to eliminate competition, which is exactly what they did. That's the whole premise of the Sherman act; multiple entities cannot conspire with one another to eliminate competitors. Is the NFL 32 separate entities ? Did the NFL, all 32 franchises, conspire with EA to eliminate competition ? The answer to both of those questions is yes.

[LiquorLogic]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

Oh and just a note as well, the American Needle case applied specifically to that case and the NFL moving forward in how it does business. It did not strike down all in-place NFL contracts and agreements. That means that the current agreement is still legal and valid until a court says otherwise.

I know that, and I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL settled out of court with American Needle, and EA settles their case out of court. What these cases do is set precedent, as well as discourage EA and the NFL from renewing the exclusive license again.

If you got sued before for doing something, would you do it again even if you settled out of court the first time ? What would the courts think if the NFL, or EA, renewed the license, got sued, and settled out of court again ?

[bwburke94]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

The real problem is GameStop, as always. The whole online pass mess was an attempt to stop GameStop from selling used copies. It didn't work.

[ODogg]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

LiquorLogic - I agree that it does mean its very slightly less likely that they will renew it (combined with the fact that the money the NFL would want to renew it is going to be off the charts), however it really doesn't add much work to renewing it if they really want, they simply have to go to the teams and ask them do they want to be in the videogame or not. I doubt any team is going to say no. Personally I hope they don't renew it.

P.S. - I still disagree with the whole "NFL and EA" conspired to eliminate competition. To conspire it takes more than one party and the NFL is allowed legally to sell its trademark to whoever it wants to market it, there is no conspiracy on there part to eliminate competition, they are the deciders of what to do with the brand.

[LiquorLogic]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

LiquorLogic - I agree that it does mean its very slightly less likely that they will renew it (combined with the fact that the money the NFL would want to renew it is going to be off the charts), however it really doesn't add much work to renewing it if they really want, they simply have to go to the teams and ask them do they want to be in the videogame or not. I doubt any team is going to say no. Personally I hope they don't renew it.

They'd have to go to each team and get them to sign exclusively with the NFL. Wouldn't that be the same difference ?

P.S. - I still disagree with the whole "NFL and EA" conspired to eliminate competition. To conspire it takes more than one party and the NFL is allowed legally to sell its trademark to whoever it wants to market it, there is no conspiracy on there part to eliminate competition, they are the deciders of what to do with the brand.

The NFL is isn't one party. They are 32 separate parties, with 32 different owners, so they can definitely conspire with each other. The Supreme Court doesn't consider the NFL to be a single entity, or one party.

You're looking at the NFL like they're McDonald's; in actuality, the NFL is like McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Outback, Applebee's and whatever other restaurant. If Coca-Cola had exclusive deals with every major restaurant I think the courts might have a problem with that.

[ODogg]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

LiquorLogic - the NFL is a shield under which all of the teams fall. This recent decision does not change that, it only mandates that the teams themselves must negotiate contracts like the EA one. It's really semantics going forward because the teams will still be splitting revenue equally per their internal agreements on contracts like the EA Madden one so it's not as if the Cowboys can ask for 11 million dollars to be in Madden whereas the Cardinals are only going to be able to get 8 million dollars to appear in the game. The only aspect to negotiating with the teams individually vs. doing so in regards to negotiating with the NFL will be to negotiate if a team does not wish to participate in the contract or if they do. And as I said before, what team owner is going to keep their team out of Madden or contracts like it? And of course there will be other contracts on individual team basis which will continue to operate the way they do now (i.e Dallas Cowboys signing contracts with Nike, whereas other teams go with Reeboks, etc).

Again, it may seem like a huge decision, the American Needle case, but it really is more about the methodology of the contract negotiation for the types of contracts that involve all of the teams, such as DirecTV Sunday Ticket and Madden than anything else. Those sorts of contracts will ALWAYS be based on evenly split revenue sharing so the only aspect of negotiating for the individual teams is going to be opting in or opting out and you will never see any teams opting out of those sorts of contracts. It's not really going to change the way the NFL does business and it's not going to create any different business practices for the most part IMO.

[LiquorLogic]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

LiquorLogic - the NFL is a shield under which all of the teams fall. This recent decision does not change that, it only mandates that the teams themselves must negotiate contracts like the EA one. It's really semantics going forward because the teams will still be splitting revenue equally per their internal agreements on contracts like the EA Madden one so it's not as if the Cowboys can ask for 11 million dollars to be in Madden whereas the Cardinals are only going to be able to get 8 million dollars to appear in the game. The only aspect to negotiating with the teams individually vs. doing so in regards to negotiating with the NFL will be to negotiate if a team does not wish to participate in the contract or if they do. And as I said before, what team owner is going to keep their team out of Madden or contracts like it? And of course there will be other contracts on individual team basis which will continue to operate the way they do now (i.e Dallas Cowboys signing contracts with Nike, whereas other teams go with Reeboks, etc).

Again, it may seem like a huge decision, the American Needle case, but it really is more about the methodology of the contract negotiation for the types of contracts that involve all of the teams, such as DirecTV Sunday Ticket and Madden than anything else. Those sorts of contracts will ALWAYS be based on evenly split revenue sharing so the only aspect of negotiating for the individual teams is going to be opting in or opting out and you will never see any teams opting out of those sorts of contracts. It's not really going to change the way the NFL does business and it's not going to create any different business practices for the most part IMO.

It looks like it already has.

"The lawsuit was filed by American Needle Inc., which until 2000 had a contract to sell team caps. The NFL decided to award all of its apparel franchises to Reebok"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/13/AR2010011304394.html?wprss=rss_nation

"Under the new agreements, the NFL split the onfield apparel license among Nike and privately held New Era."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B4D320101012

[ODogg]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

Yeah for something like team shirts, caps or something then as I said, stuff like that will continue to be more about the individual teams. But for contracts on a single entity sold in all markets, such as a DirecTV package or a Madden football game those will not change how they're locked up, other than the semantics of how the deal is done so as to comply by the most recent court decision as I explained in my last post.

[LiquorLogic]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

Yeah for something like team shirts, caps or something then as I said, stuff like that will continue to be more about the individual teams. But for contracts on a single entity sold in all markets, such as a DirecTV package or a Madden football game those will not change how they're locked up, other than the semantics of how the deal is done so as to comply by the most recent court decision as I explained in my last post.

I disagree, since the NFL isn't exempt from anti-trust scrutiny they may not want to take the risk of making exclusive deals and having to go to court again. They're not going to have to rip up contracts now, but this may discourage them from making deals like this in the future. If the every team signed exclusively with EA, that wouldn't look to good to the courts. Exclusive deals are more expensive than non-exclusive ones, so if every team takes more money from EA and exclusively gives EA their rights, locking out the competition and harming the consumer, how would they, the NFL, convince a court that they're not conspiring with each other to eliminate the competition ?

[ODogg]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

The American Needle case wasn't centered on the exclusivity of the deal so much as the deal was brokered under the NFL as a single entity aspect rather than the deal was brokered with all individual 32 teams. There will still be plenty of exclusive deals, they will just be negotiated in a different manner in order to discourage the ability for future lawsuits like this one.

As for your last question "how would the NFL convince a court they're not conspiring to eliminate the competition"...the NFL does not have to ensure competition beyond the initial bidding process for the contract. That is the competition.