Supreme Court Rules Against NFL Being Single Entity

by
Posted May 24th, 2010 at 12:36 pm

The case of American Needle v. NFL took an interesting turn today with the Supreme Court ruling that the league can not use the single entity argument in an antitrust lawsuit. American Needle has been suing after they lost the ability to create NFL licensed merchandise. They were able to produce official NFL hats with teams that they had individual agreements with until the league made a league-wide deal with Reebok that granted exclusive 10 year rights.

The lower courts had found that antitrust law did not prohibit teams from banding together for a single apparel license. American Needle had its case thrown out in the lower courts on those grounds but successfully appealed at the Supreme Court level. The NFL actually joined in the appeal in the hopes of establishing itself as a single entity had they gotten a successful ruling. Now the case will once again be heard at a lower court where it could very well lose again though this keeps American Needle’s hopes alive and raises questions for the future.

Currently EA Sports has the exclusive NFL license through 2012 (Madden 13). What could this mean for gamers? At this point it is too early to say. First off American Needle hasn’t won its case. What has happened is the Supreme Court has ruled that the NFL can not use the one-entity argument in its favor against American Needle. However in doing so it does seem to have opened a door for antitrust suits to be filed in other areas.

Could Comcast challenge the NFL’s exclusive deal with DirecTV? Could Take Two challenge the NFL license with EA? Too early to say whether those would be viable options for companies to consider. They could end up challenging and losing even with this ruling as it will be up to the lower courts to determine whether antitrust law is being broken in each particular instance. Whether this ruling is the start of something that could drastically change the sports gaming landscape is a complete uncertainty at this point.

The worst case scenario that could come from this would be for teams to negotiate their rights with different companies resulting in fractured games. Maybe EA Sports gets the Cowboys but 2K Sports gets the Giants. Maybe a company produces a game based solely on the NFC North division and no other football games contain those teams. Any number of possibilities would remain should teams take it upon themselves to sell their rights off individually.

With this ruling that could end up being the case, though I think such a scenario remains unlikely. It would be difficult to market fractured games and the costs would be high for companies to secure teams one by one. Other than the big market teams, which might be able to demand big money, all the others would lose out in this scenario. The NFL would find a way encourage teams to band together to get the best deal possible. It would be more lucrative to stick together in the manner of a full exclusive license or an open license where companies would need to pay a large sum but in return be able to offer the full NFL experience.

So this ruling is a step towards exclusive licenses being challenged but it does not mean the current deal is going away or that the NFL won’t find a way to extend the deal with EA Sports yet again. However it is definitely something to follow developments on over the coming months as a final resolution is still a long ways off and witnessing any effects from it could take years.

Tags:
  • Pingback: Supreme Court rules that antitrust case against the NFL and Reebok can go forward | Custom made suit()

  • Keith.

    I sure wouldn't want to be the EA or NFL lawyer telling the CEO, board of directors and shareholders, “Don't worry, you have nothing to worry about with your exclusive contract.” I'm guessing those same lawyers just got punked by predicting wrong about what the Supreme Court was going to do. Sooner or later, those lawyers are going to have to play it safe (if they still have their jobs a year from now).

  • Keith.

    “If the jurors decide the restrictive contract was an unreasonable exercise of the league's power, the league will be forced to pay American Needle triple the amount of money it lost when it lost the contract.”

    I think this is THE biggest point that everyone is missing. There's no way the NFL doesn't settle this thing before trial.

  • http://www.gamesbackup.co.uk/ r4i gold

    I had read this whole article and it is really very interesting. Love to read this type of interesting and informative article. Government is taking appropriate decisions. I sure wouldn't want to be the EA or NFL lawyer telling the CEO, board of directors and shareholders.

  • Keith.

    As someone brightly noted on another board:

    “So this means 2K can go to court against the NFL and EA and cite this ruling as anti-trust and gain 3X the amount of money they lost over losing 2k5 to an exclusive deal? They were kind of in financial trouble, right? Wouldn't this be a great way for them to recover from that?”

    My answer is…Yep.

  • Chris Reys

    I believe it will revert to the way it was in the late-80's. Does anyone remember Joe montana football with all the other games having 49ers and a really good no-name quarterback? I could easily see T.O. selling his rights exclusively to a single game manufacturer and yes i could definitely see a Dallas Cowboys game selling exclusively. They have a fan-base that will eat that up. If you're a fan of the Chiefs, good luck getting an exclusive game but they will probably sell their likenesses to several games. So, if you want to be Dallas or the Raiders, go exclusive and get the other teams (minus the Raiders or Dallas).

  • http://pastapadre.com/ pastapadre

    We're not talking about players splintering off. This doesn't affect the NFLPA. This ruling would potentially just give teams the rights to negotiate their own deals.

  • jake

    you have no clue that i am destroying your mothers vagg right now

  • Pingback: NFL Notebook: Supreme Court rules NFL is 32 teams, not single business | Business Suit()

  • blondeviking64

    I love listening to 2k fan boys. They all say the same thing everytime. 2k was better…. EA stole it their chance…. And yet I see the NFL who decided they would have one video game company making their game. Just like all teams wear reebok jerseys, or whatever they will have this year, and players who have ANYTHING exposed that is the wrong company get fined. Perhaps some 2k fans boys have missed the picture. The NFL only wants one company makings its football games. EA was the nig kid on the block and they got the contract. Everyone acts like EA is the evil genius behind this. Write a letter to Goodell and deal with the actual culprits of the situation. I mean its not like the NFL CHOSE EA or anything.

  • blondeviking64

    Oh wait, they totally did. I stand corrected.

  • shut up

    SHUT UP YOU TROLL KEITH

  • Pingback: Atlanta Falcons Talk » Blog Archive » Saturday Six Pack 5/29/10: Most Underhyped Edition()

  • Pingback: Repeated Concussions Can Cause Lifelong Damage To The Brain | World University Information()

  • Pingback: Repeated Concussions Can Cause Lifelong Damage To The Brain | Download Zone()

  • http://www.overbestmall.com/nfl-jerseys/new-orleans-saints-jersey new orleans saints jersey

    It's not? Then how could it carry out suspensions on other players? The rule is nonsense.

  • donejerseys
  • Pingback: Supreme Court denies NFL increased antitrust protection | Best Franchise Advice()

Sponsors
Categories
Featured Video