BlueSky

Actually, it's nothing like that. Nothing at all. To me, it's a lot like that. It's bothering someone because they bought a cheaper product that still gets the job done. As in, "I overpaid, so everyone else should too. And if anyone finds a way to get a similar product for less money, then I'm going to be jealous." Have to agree with BBTV here in that it's not really a valid comparison because it's legal to buy a Toyota. If you bought a Toyota that somebody dummied up with fake Lexus badges and sold as a Lexus, yeah, that would be a valid comparison because the seller would be making money off the Lexus brand without authorization (i.e. illegally). In terms of the jersey discussion, your example would involve someone who paid $300 for an authentic "bothering" someone who bought an $80 NFL-licensed replica. And I agree that would not be very nice.

That's all anyone's really asking here. If you understand the law, if you understand the concept of IP rights and you still decide to buy a counterfeit then that's your call. Right. I couldn't care less if you buy the jersey or not, as long as you don't act like there's not only nothing wrong with it, but you're some kind of crusader against the big bad businesses who are destroying society by selling sports jerseys at a certain price point. Or somebody who dares make a point that isn't in keeping with those of the self-appointed gatekeepers for the noble NFL. Hey, if you want to play the hyperbole game, I can do that.

Not really. BlueSky had simply posted on the previous page that he believed the only reason to have an exclusive license is to simply take advantage of the consumer and raise prices. He also used the old comparison of 2K Sports and EA Sports 2005 football games as an example of his claim, while Ice and I refuted that claim by stating the other reasons why the NFL would want exclusive licensing agreements with other companies. That's all. It still goes back to this - this is a board for people who enjoy sports logos. Sports and logos. So why would you support something where the profits go to neither? It makes absolutely no sense. I'm going to try not to say things that have already been said a thousand times in this thread, but it's wrong to buy counterfeit jerseys. When you decide what sports team you like you're not automatically entitled to anything. Not tickets, not hats, not jerseys. Wow...just wow. Please allow me to apologize for not sticking to the board's agenda. This from someone who says the video game situation is not a valid example of why exclusive licenses (i.e. monopolies) are not good for customers. Yes, BBTV (aka Captain Obvious in this instance), it's business. But "reasonable profit" is a business term for a reason. Using a monopoly or exclusive license or whatever pretty name you want to put on it is bad business. It's bad for customers and what's bad for customers is bad for the league in the long run. And oh BTW, it's also illegal for most businesses (and if 2K5 prevails in the lawsuit, here too). And BBTV, please think twice about gouging your eyes out. Don't think your medical insurance will cover that. Indicative? Sure. A justification for funding illegal activity by buying bootlegs? Hell no. A justification of sorts: this is the true market response to an artificially controlled market. Nice to know somebody else gets it. BTW, the argument that exclusive licenses allow the league to ensure top quality is laughable. Again - this is so basic it's ridiculous - that can easily be accomplished through Quality Control regardless of the number of suppliers. If the NFL's QC people simply looked at a sample and said, "Sorry, not up to standard, come back when you have it right" the problem is instantly solved. Look, the NFL chooses to give customers one source for "authentic" (ha!) jerseys; one source for video games; one source for games on PPV. Agree or disagree with my points, please take the time to think of the additional product choices you'd have and the money you'd save and how much better all of it would be if they chose to allow competition. That and only that is the point I'm making. I've said before, I'm torn on the issue of counterfeits because I know it's wrong but I understand - look up that word if you think it means "approve" - why people buy on the black market.

No, not really. It's simple, really. The NFL has the right to grant a single manufacturer their exclusive licence. It's their IP. They're free to do with it what they want. I'm really not getting why this is such a hard concept to grasp. Not to mention, when people talk about the 2K Sports vs. EA Sports they ALWAYS seem to gloss over that fact. Forget the fact that EA Sports produced critically acclaimed versions of football simulations year-after-year, and 2K took about four years to finally get it right, but they try to complain that was EA Sports did was illegal. No, it's perfectly legal. If EA Sports/DirecTV/Reebok are the only companies that can represent a high-level of quality with the NFL's products, then it's the NFL's right to be able to strike an exclusive deal with that said company. Regardless of how you few the companies I mentioned, the fact still remains that if the NFL is ever called out for doing so, the league will probably be able to show that rival companies complaining about the licensing agreement didn't represent the NFL well with their quality of products. Granted, it can lead to customers being forced to pay higher costs, and can lead to a lack of quality competition, but it does keep some two-bit hack producing a piece of crap in their garage and selling whatever it might be to the general public as "authentic." Obviously, is a person buys that, they're going to complain about the quality of said product, and indirectly cause damage to the NFL's brand. Weak. Real weak. The ONLY reason for granting exclusive deals is to jack up prices. Period. If the market is willing to sustain those prices then that simply makes the granting of the exclusives licences to be a smart business move. Wrong. A huge part of airlines' current problems is their pricing system, which I'm intimately familiar with. They screwed business customers for years because business people had no alternative. Well, now, with inexpensive conference/video calling and so on, they DO have an alternative and aren't paying those $900 one-way fares any more. Why do you think car dealers have such awful reputations? Because they screw people, plain and simple.

No, not really. It's simple, really. The NFL has the right to grant a single manufacturer their exclusive licence. It's their IP. They're free to do with it what they want. I'm really not getting why this is such a hard concept to grasp. Not to mention, when people talk about the 2K Sports vs. EA Sports they ALWAYS seem to gloss over that fact. Forget the fact that EA Sports produced critically acclaimed versions of football simulations year-after-year, and 2K took about four years to finally get it right, but they try to complain that was EA Sports did was illegal. No, it's perfectly legal. If EA Sports/DirecTV/Reebok are the only companies that can represent a high-level of quality with the NFL's products, then it's the NFL's right to be able to strike an exclusive deal with that said company. Regardless of how you few the companies I mentioned, the fact still remains that if the NFL is ever called out for doing so, the league will probably be able to show that rival companies complaining about the licensing agreement didn't represent the NFL well with their quality of products. Granted, it can lead to customers being forced to pay higher costs, and can lead to a lack of quality competition, but it does keep some two-bit hack producing a piece of crap in their garage and selling whatever it might be to the general public as "authentic." Obviously, is a person buys that, they're going to complain about the quality of said product, and indirectly cause damage to the NFL's brand. Weak. Real weak. The ONLY reason for granting exclusive deals is to jack up prices. Period.

No, not really. It's simple, really. The NFL has the right to grant a single manufacturer their exclusive licence. It's their IP. They're free to do with it what they want. I'm really not getting why this is such a hard concept to grasp. It's not, I get it perfectly. What I've asked you to explain over and over and over is why you're okay with them using that power to establish/maintain artificially high prices. Let's try another question and have you answer it - what other purpose than that is there for granting an exclusive license?

Icecap and Charger77 are hunched over their keyboards burning up the keys about now...

Because the point of business to make as much money as the market will allow you to make? This isn't a hard concept to grasp. The NFL has the right to sell their own products at whatever price they want. If the consumer base is willing to pay that price, then the NFL's justified in continuing to sell their products at that price. If you think the price is to high, then don't buy the product. If enough people think it's to high and similarly refuse to buy the product then the NFL will lower the price. It's not your place to tell the NFL they're wrong for selling their own products at a price the market is willing to support. Thanks for replying to that so I didn't have to. But it's fine with you guys that they use their power to grant exclusive licenses to take money out of your pocket? That's the part I just don't get. I've argued the NFL2K5 example before and this (from Wikipedia) sums it up nicely: === Notably, ESPN NFL 2K5 was the first in the 2K series priced at $19.99 the day it shipped. The competitive pricing eventually led EA Sports to reduce Madden 2005's price to a mere $29.95, a 40 percent reduction of the series usual rate at the time of $49.99. Following 2005 editions of both games, EA Sports acquired an exclusive rights agreement with the NFL and Player's Association to be the sole creator of NFL video games. The deal terminated 2K Sports production of any further NFL games. The ensuing season, Madden 2006, saw pricing returned to the $49.99 MSRP. In December 2010, A U.S. district court judge certified a class action anti-trust lawsuit against Electronic Arts for anticompetitive practices to proceed[1]. Pending the outcome of the suit, 2K Sports could be granted NFL rights again which would permit the series to continue. === And that it's a better product then Madden just makes the whole thing worse. They stick it to consumers and you NFL apologists just say, "Thank you sir, may I have another?" Help me understand why you enjoy being taken advantage of? You won't even admit they use monopolistic practices to artifically inflate prices. At least acknowledge that for God's sake. Sure, buying counterfeits is wrong. So is screwing customers.

Sean Taylor isn't doing any writing anytime soon. Actually, he's not doing much of anything anytime soon. That's cold, man.

Knowing you are buying an illegal knockoff and having absolutely no clue that you are a two different things, but that has not been the argument in this thread. Just because many get away with it does not make it less illegal. Right on both counts. No disrespect BlueSky, because you're generally a pretty reasonable and intelligent poster (if not just a tad Saints-centric ), but I'm having a tough time at this point deciding if you are just trying to keep the debate going at any cost, or if you really don't understand the differences between the situations you posted and what we've been discussing here. Neither, it's just not as black and white to me as it seems to be to the rest of you. I also think there are valid points about people bitching about horrific knockoffs when some of the crap the actual players are wearing is just as bad or worse.

Please stop trying to make whatever point you're trying to make by posting pics of bad NFL knockoffs since they're no worse than what the league itself puts on the field. Before Techfit came along, if somebody bought an "authentic" identical to Addai's game jersey from www.cheapchineseripoffjerseysthatreallypissofficecapandco.com and posted it here, you guys would have torn it and the poster apart while LYAO all the while. We had another whole discussion over the Giants' widely disparate pants stripes. If you think the NFL is concerned about visual integrity, you're wrong. What we have here is relative morality. We could list illegal acts and the percentage of people who believe that act is wrong would vary from act to act. Murder for example, probably 99.9% or better believe it's wrong. Rolling through a stop sign (which irritates the hell out of me when people do it btw), the percentage would obviously be very different. We can agree it's illegal, but is it wrong? That's where Ice Cap and crowd's black and white fades to gray IMO. Explain to me how stealing isn't wrong? Explain to me how Joe Sixpack (i.e. not Joe CCSLC Uninerd), or somebody's grandma whose been told Johnny wants a jersey for Christmas, is "stealing" when they go to eBay or what looks to them like a legit website and buys what turns out to be a knockoff? How do people openly sell knockoffs of everything from Coach purses to Vuitton luggage to Rolexes on the streets of New York City if it's so illegal?

Please stop trying to make whatever point you're trying to make by posting pics of bad NFL knockoffs since they're no worse than what the league itself puts on the field, as evidence by the earlier Addai pic. Before Techfit hit the field, if somebody bought an "authentic" identical to Addai's game jersey from www.cheapchineseripoffjerseysthatreallypissofficecapandco.com and posted it here, you guys would have torn it and the poster apart while LYAO all the while. We had another whole discussion over the Giants' widely disparate pants stripes. If you think the NFL is concerned about visual integrity, you're wrong. My bad. I shall stick to NHL, MLB, and NBA The point of this thread is not to be a debate forum for whether or not Chinese counterfeits are ethical to buy, this is supposed to be a photo gallery of how bad they suck. Well, that aside... You're right, the right vs. wrong debate did kinda hijack the thread.

Please stop trying to make whatever point you're trying to make by posting pics of bad NFL knockoffs since they're no worse than what the league itself puts on the field. Before Techfit came along, if somebody bought an "authentic" identical to Addai's game jersey from www.cheapchineseripoffjerseysthatreallypissofficecapandco.com and posted it here, you guys would have torn it and the poster apart while LYAO all the while. We had another whole discussion over the Giants' widely disparate pants stripes. If you think the NFL is concerned about visual integrity, you're wrong. What we have here is relative morality. We could list illegal acts and the percentage of people who believe that act is wrong would vary from act to act. Murder for example, probably 99.9% or better believe it's wrong. Rolling through a stop sign (which irritates the hell out of me when people do it btw), the percentage would obviously be very different. We can agree it's illegal, but is it wrong? That's where Ice Cap and crowd's black and white fades to gray IMO.

Believe it or not I don't sit around waiting for you to reply to the Counterfeit thread. Truth be told I feel I've said all I have to say on the topic. Even on the Addai thing. I've said what I have to say regarding Reebok's attempt at "stripes." This itself isn't a hot button topic. The law, however, is. There are many things in the world that are indeed shades of grey. The law, however, is not one of them. Something is either against the law or it isn't. There's no grey area. It's a simple enough concept. People not getting that is the "hot button" issue for me. 1) I'm crushed. Really. But that response sounds more like you don't have good counterpoints than you've had enough of it. Just sayin'... Not really. I read your latest long post. And every counterpoint I could have made I have made. No one's convincing anyone else here, we've just started repeating the same points. If you want to do that then ok. I had opted not to. If anything says "I don't have a counterpoint" it's the "well you break the law SO THERE" response. The fact is that what anyone else does in regards to the law has absolutely zero barring on the counterfeit discussion. Lets say I head out to the grocery store later, and lets say I drive over the speed limit. How does that make the sale and production of counterfeits any less illegal? Fact is it doesn't. The topic up for discussion is counterfeiting jerseys. It's illegal. That if I sped home from school that one time a few months ago doesn't change that fact. 1) Wisdom! I applaud you for realizing that and we'll leave things as they are. 2) No, but it's to my point of people being on a high horse about one illegal act while they themselves commit others.

Believe it or not I don't sit around waiting for you to reply to the Counterfeit thread. Truth be told I feel I've said all I have to say on the topic. Even on the Addai thing. I've said what I have to say regarding Reebok's attempt at "stripes." This itself isn't a hot button topic. The law, however, is. There are many things in the world that are indeed shades of grey. The law, however, is not one of them. Something is either against the law or it isn't. There's no grey area. It's a simple enough concept. People not getting that is the "hot button" issue for me. 1) I'm crushed. Really. But that response sounds more like you don't have good counterpoints than you've had enough of it. Just sayin'... 2) And you never, ever, violate any of them in any way, intentionally or unintentionally. Riiiight.

Where's Ice Cap? He's usually rebutting my arguments within 30 seconds or so. And BBTV, did I make the case for an NFL monopoly on jerseys? Here I thought we had a nice debate going.

Well, boys?

It's overlooked because it's irrelevant. Also, I just skimmed the last few pages so I may have missed this, but was there an good argument made on the side of the NFL being a monopoly? If so, could it be repeated, because I have no idea how this could be the case (even if there's some kind of anti-trust exemption in play.) I don't see how a product manufacturer doesn't have exclusive rights to their product, and the NFL is in effect one single manufacturer. If you want to make the argument that the 32 teams should be split up into more independent entities, then that's one thing, but either way, I fail to see any way to argue that the NFL is a monopoly. It's not irrelevant when they're marketing the jerseys as "authentic," i.e. similar to those worn on the field. Is it irrelevant when you board your Delta connecting flight only to find it's really operated by Joe Bob Airways? No, because it's sold to you as Delta. Monopoly, from dictionary.com: exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. The way you guys talk, you must enjoy getting reamed in the wallet when left with few or no choices. BBTV, you like paying higher air fares because US Airways is basically the only game in town? Do you guys enjoy Madden even though it's inferior to NFL 2K5? Wait, where's NFL 2K11? Oh, that's right, they can't make it any more because EA Sports has an exclusive deal. Obviously the NFL has exclusive rights to their products. Duh. But you're confusing that with creating a monopoly on a product. Once we're past the exclusive rights thing, the NFL has a choice - multiple manufacturers with the resultant choice of products (think NFL-licensed t-shirts for example) and lower prices, or exclusive deals (like the whole Madden mess). How many iPhone apps would their be if Apple granted an exclusive license to one app maker? Musicians have exclusive rights to their music, what if they dictated that only one radio station in town could play them? Monopolies take choices away from you, but you approve! I just...don't...get it. So see, the NFL could license more than one manufacturer to make "authentic" jerseys. I say "authentic" because no matter what they say, the jerseys they sell are no longer that similar to those worn in games because of position-specific cuts and so on. The "then the jerseys would look different from one another" argument is false because that's under their control (it's called QC and adhering to the league's standard for appearance and materials). If more than one manufacturer can make the jerseys, then there is something called "competition," which is my experience leads to better products, more kinds to choose from (one manufacturer might choose to make more "authentic" throwbacks for example), and lower prices. But the NFL dictates (i.e. has exclusive control) through licensing Reebok that Reebok is the only source for authentic NFL jerseys and thus they control the prices. By definition, that's a monopoly on the availability and pricing of a commodity - NFL jerseys - not to be confused (again, Ice Cap) with exclusive rights. One last example - what if Sunday Ticket was available through any TV provider? What if you could buy a single game through PPV? Wouldn't it be nice? But we don't have those choices because the NFL has exclusive rights to those broadcasts and chooses to impose a monopoly on their availability. And Ice Cap, "self righteous" wasn't the right term. My point is you see this in black and white when, like everything in the world, there are shades of gray. It also seems to be a real hot button for you for whatever reason.

From your link, the "low quality Chinese jersey" looks better than what the Colts wear on the field. Just saying...and laughing. You think so? To me the poor quality of the numbers and letters just scream "cheap knockoff to me". For example do you notice the "wavyness" in the numbers? It is not the stiff tackel twill that should be there. Its kind of the same material of a logo that would be on a Starter jacket. And what do Addai's blue dashes that pass for wraparound shoulder stripes, tiny TV numbers, and NOB that looks like Joey from Mrs. Snyder's 2nd grade home room put it on that "authentic" (game worn for crying out loud!) jersey say to you? That's an overlooked part of this discussion, the fact that the NFL obviously has no interest whatsoever in the visual integrity of their teams' uniforms.

No, it does not. The NFL's exclusive licence does not qualify as a monopoly because the football jersey market is not just the NFL. The NFL and its teams are simply brands in a market that include college and university teams, other pro teams from other pro or semi-pro leagues, and manufacturer specific stuff like Fubu jerseys. If the football jersey market was confined to just the NFL then yes, you would have a point. It isn't though. The NFL's exclusive licence only covers a portion of the wider football jersey marketplace, only 32 brands when you get right down to it. That's not a monopoly. Of course it does. People don't want just a jersey, they want their team's jersey, and if that team happens to be in the NFL, their only option is the NFL or a licensee. Wherever they get it though, the NFL sets the price. BTW, did the issue of homemades ever get addressed? By your thinking, wouldn't a homemade (regardless of quality) be illegal? I think IceCap said it earlier, but a homemade isn't technically illegal. It only becomes illegal when you try to sell it for your own profit. Makes sense. BTW, I'm amused at all the handwringing over inaccurate fakes when the NFL itself has "authentics" that look like Big Lots rejects on the field: And now the NFL has handed the licence over to Reebok. The free market at work. Uh, Nike. No one's arguing that any of this is the free market at work, but by extension, so is the black market. Most people will accept a reasonably priced alternative; iTunes is proof of that. Speaking of, say Frankie and the Fakers records a cover of Sammy Superstar's latest hit and sells it on iTunes for 89 cents where the "real" song by Sammy costs $1.29. By your reasoning, why is okay to buy the "knockoff"?

No, it does not. The NFL's exclusive licence does not qualify as a monopoly because the football jersey market is not just the NFL. The NFL and its teams are simply brands in a market that include college and university teams, other pro teams from other pro or semi-pro leagues, and manufacturer specific stuff like Fubu jerseys. If the football jersey market was confined to just the NFL then yes, you would have a point. It isn't though. The NFL's exclusive licence only covers a portion of the wider football jersey marketplace, only 32 brands when you get right down to it. That's not a monopoly. Of course it does. People don't want just a jersey, they want their team's jersey, and if that team happens to be in the NFL, their only option is the NFL or a licensee. Wherever they get it though, the NFL sets the price. BTW, did the issue of homemades ever get addressed? By your thinking, wouldn't a homemade (regardless of quality) be illegal? I think IceCap said it earlier, but a homemade isn't technically illegal. It only becomes illegal when you try to sell it for your own profit. Makes sense. BTW, I'm amused at all the handwringing over inaccurate fakes when the NFL itself has "authentics" that look like Big Lots rejects on the field:

No, it does not. The NFL's exclusive licence does not qualify as a monopoly because the football jersey market is not just the NFL. The NFL and its teams are simply brands in a market that include college and university teams, other pro teams from other pro or semi-pro leagues, and manufacturer specific stuff like Fubu jerseys. If the football jersey market was confined to just the NFL then yes, you would have a point. It isn't though. The NFL's exclusive licence only covers a portion of the wider football jersey marketplace, only 32 brands when you get right down to it. That's not a monopoly. Of course it does. People don't want just a jersey, they want their team's jersey, and if that team happens to be in the NFL, their only option is the NFL or a licensee. Wherever they get it though, the NFL sets the price. BTW, did the issue of homemades ever get addressed? By your thinking, wouldn't a homemade (regardless of quality) be illegal?

There's nothing to say that hasn't already been said. The NFL has the right to sell their own products at whatever prices they want. You can go on and on about the NFL selling their products at a price high above the cost it takes to manufacture them, but that's their right. It's their intellectual property, it's their merchandise. They'll allowed to sell it at any price they want, and if the market's willing to pay that price then, well, that's how the free market works. The NFL has a monopoly on NFL products? Say it isn't so! Next thing you'll tell me is that Coca-Cola has a monopoly on Coca-Cola branded soft drinks! And exclusive licences? What's wrong with that? If you own intellectual property I'm sure it's completely legal to grant an exclusive licence for that property if you decide it's in your best interests as the owners of said IP. If the prices of NFL jerseys are to much for your liking then don't buy them. Vote with your wallet. If enough people decide their prices are to high then they'll lower their prices. The answer is not to support the theft of intellectual property and violations of US copyright law. So mature. I hope you're really smart enough to grasp the difference. I'm smart enough to know that what you're angry about isn't a monopoly. The NFL owns their IP (shocking, I know). They're free to do with it what they want. If they want to give a manufacturer an exclusive licence that's their right as the holder of the IP. A monopoly would be if the NFL started their own manufacturing company, awarded themselves their own exclusive licence, and then used that to either drive Nike and Reebok out of the football jersey business, or outright acquire the jersey manufacturing parts of their companies. Them simply deciding that one manufacturer is better then multiple is not a monopoly. Nike, Reebook, and other companies I'm sure still have to compete for the licence, and it's the NFL's licence to give to whoever they want anyway, it's their IP. Yeah, and two replicas for the same team, each one from a different manufacturer, would look different. We had this, remember? Each company that had a contract with a NFL team could manufacture ANY NFL team's jerseys for sale. A Broncos jersey made by Nike and a Broncos jersey by Puma looked different. Chargers jerseys (speaking from experience) could fluctuate in bolt dimensions and the thickness of number outlines depending on who made the particular jersey. It was inevitable because each company has its own design teams, templates, and manufacturing processes. Yeah, all the jerseys out there for a given team followed the same general design, but there were (sometimes striking) variations across manufacturers. It's reasonable to assume that the NFL wanted tighter brand unity for its teams, hence the switch to a single manufacturer. So what? You're pissy that the market hasn't brought the prices of NFL jerseys down? To me that says that their prices are ones that costumers, by and large, are willing to pay. If costumers are willing to pay the NFL's prices then there isn't a problem, is there? No. It proves that there are scumbags out there who are willing to steal other people's intellectual property to make a quick buck themselves. It proves that there are people out there willing to support those scumbags either out of ignorance or a flawed belief that they deserve jerseys and that by supporting an illegal operation they're "sticking it to the man." At the end of the day two wrongs don't make a right. If you honestly believe the NFL is "wrong" to charge so much for their products then don't buy those products. Knowingly supporting criminal activity isn't somehow made ok. You're so self-righteous about this. And wrong, at least about one thing: -- mo·nop·o·ly   /məˈnɒpəli/ [muh-nop-uh-lee] –noun, plural -lies. 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. -- Sorry, the NFL's control of who makes their jerseys qualifies. I'm not angry or even pissy. As I've posted before (guessed you missed those), I'm torn on this issue, which makes me a hypocrite, but we all are (yeah, even you) in some way or another. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, specifically answering the post about why leagues don't crack down harder on counterfeits by barring people from stadiums and so on. You have a lot to say (much of it obvious btw) but still haven't addressed the fact that no league would want to bring too much scrutiny on their profit margins (which are probably obscene), especially at a time when most fans have already been priced out of even attending an occasional game (much less the economy, unemployment rate et al). Do you agree or disagree, and why?

There's nothing to say that hasn't already been said. The NFL has the right to sell their own products at whatever prices they want. You can go on and on about the NFL selling their products at a price high above the cost it takes to manufacture them, but that's their right. It's their intellectual property, it's their merchandise. They'll allowed to sell it at any price they want, and if the market's willing to pay that price then, well, that's how the free market works. The NFL has a monopoly on NFL products? Say it isn't so! Next thing you'll tell me is that Coca-Cola has a monopoly on Coca-Cola branded soft drinks! And exclusive licences? What's wrong with that? If you own intellectual property I'm sure it's completely legal to grant an exclusive licence for that property if you decide it's in your best interests as the owners of said IP. If the prices of NFL jerseys are to much for your liking then don't buy them. Vote with your wallet. If enough people decide their prices are to high then they'll lower their prices. The answer is not to support the theft of intellectual property and violations of US copyright law. So mature. I hope you're really smart enough to grasp the difference. If the NFL allowed multiple manufacturers to make jerseys the prices would be lower. You must enjoy paying double (or more) the rate for the same hotel room when a special event happens to be in town, right? And you never gripe about paying $459 for the same airline seat as the guy next to you, who paid $169? And you never set foot in Wal-Mart, right, because they're driving Ma and Pa's general store on Main Street right out of business? That's how the free market works blah blah blah. Doesn't the fact that a de facto black market exists at least suggest that these items are overpriced? And I hope you never bitched about how much better NFL 2K5 was than Madden, because that's another monopoly the league created.

Still waiting for someone to take on the profit margin argument...but then I suppose it's just easier to ignore the things that don't support your own point. Let's throw in as well that the NFL creates its own monopoly, and the high prices that brings, by granting exclusive licenses. What say ye about that?