NFL Loses (some?) antitrust protection.

[BBTV]

But the players who sign said contracts are in the NFLPA. I would have to imagine that since collective bargaining is done with the League that it would make it impossible to legally say that a signed contract isn't for the NFL. There would have to be 32 separate CBAs, which wouldn't make a lot of sense.

[The_Admiral]

Weren't the Kansas City Chiefs, Quebec Nordiques, Indiana Pacers, et alia all independent businesses that upon approval from their new leagues, decided to do business there as opposed to their old leagues? Now, granted, each WHA team had to surrender exclusivity to all but two players as a condition of inclusion, which certainly made them feel like expansion franchises, but the other players were still under contract to their independent teams, whose contracts could now be traded among or acquired by other NHL teams. Not sure what the provisions were for the AFL and ABA teams.

The point about the NFLPA is a good one, however, and there's probably verbiage in the CBA that says the contracts are null/void should a team withdraw from the league. I don't know. I try not to sit down and read collective bargaining agreements if I can help it.

[dfwabel]

American Needles is fighting the fight which Nike did not fight in 1995. If some of you may recall, at that time, the Dallas Cowboys and Nike signed an outrageous seven year deal with Nike which was to have the creation of a Nike product tent and sports theme park at Texas Stadium, and require(d) the Cowboys to play three pre-season games near Nike headquarters in Oregon. All of that money was to circumvent the salary cap in terms of revenue as it was "with" Texas Stadium and not the team. As a result, the Cowboys could double dip. Since only MLB has the anti-trust exemption, this is important to the other big leagues. NASCAR is private as a series, so they don't count.

A Barry Switzer led team had no logos on jerseys or team apparel (like coach's jackets). Jones also alligned his team with AMEX and Pepsi while at the time, the NFL had contracts with Coca-Cola and VISA at that time too.

As for the A-B/InBev (Bud Light) deal, there are 28 teams which serve Bud Light in their facilities. This deal will not necessarily change that. Texas Stadium was a Miller facility and there were four to six "secret" places which one could get Bud/Bud Light. Cowboys Stadium is all Miller/SAB on the club level (you can get Peroni). No Bud family and no Coors Light, even though domestically SAB/Miller and MolsonCoors have an agreement.

[Gothamite]

It'll be interesting to see how far, if at all, the court gets into these issues.

I suspect it will have a very narrow focus, and zero in on whether or not the NFL can make exclusive deals with one manufacturer for merchandise (and given the SCOTUS ruling, my money's on "not").

[gueman]

There was an interesting article I read the other day that said the big winner in all of this will be Under Armour. And how their stock shot up the day of the ruling.

[BBTV]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=easterbrook/100525

According to this, it's not over, and could be returned to the lower courts. I just skimmed it, but it at least seems like it's still far from a big win for UA and the other apparel companies.

I still cannot see how the league can not be considered one entity with 32 divisions. Sure, operationally, they're independent, but in every other aspect, they work together, and have a common commissioner.

[Gothamite]

I don't think anyone thought this was settled. It would only have been over if the NFL had prevailed before SCOTUS. American Needle only won the right to sue, so now we go through the regular process.

NFL clubs might have common interests, but they also compete with each other not only on the field but in the marketplace. It's an unusual business arrangement, to be sure, but as an alliance of mostly-partners, the NFL isn't a single-entity.

[BBTV]

I don't think anyone thought this was settled. It would only have been over if the NFL had prevailed before SCOTUS. American Needle only won the right to sue, so now we go through the regular process.

NFL clubs might have common interests, but they also compete with each other not only on the field but in the marketplace. It's an unusual business arrangement, to be sure, but as an alliance of mostly-partners, the NFL isn't a single-entity.

They don't really compete with each other though. The Eagles aren't really competing with the Giants for fans. There's no amount of TV ads or product-placement that the Eagles can do that's going to get a Giants fan to switch sides, and vice versa. It's not like Crest vs. Aquafresh here. Even with the marketing, aren't most of those profits shared? The only profits that I'm aware of that aren't shared (and I could be wrong) are local revenue, like radio deals, in-stadium ad sales, and naming rights. They aren't competing with the other clubs in any of those areas.

Competition "on the field" isn't really competition either. The clubs are in business to put out a product that will get people to watch, that doesn't necessarily mean winning. If the Jaguars were to beat the Cowboys time and time again, it's meaningless, because the Cowboys are still going to make more money than them. It's not really competition at all (at least in a business context.)

[Gothamite]

They don't really compete with each other though. The Eagles aren't really competing with the Giants for fans. There's no amount of TV ads or product-placement that the Eagles can do that's going to get a Giants fan to switch sides, and vice versa.

Sure they are. In New Jersey, for example. They're selling their brand, and assorted products, to casual fans.

You're right that true die-hards will never switch allegiances. But really, what percentage of football fans are die-hards? There are plenty of bandwaggoners who are happy to jump ship when one team wins and another loses. Or when one gets a new, marketable logo.

Then there's the creation of new fans, from children and other people just being introduced to the sport.

There's a ton of competition for fans, and for fans' dollars.

[BBTV]

They don't really compete with each other though. The Eagles aren't really competing with the Giants for fans. There's no amount of TV ads or product-placement that the Eagles can do that's going to get a Giants fan to switch sides, and vice versa.

Sure they are. In New Jersey, for example. They're selling their brand, and assorted products, to casual fans.

You're right that true die-hards will never switch allegiances. But really, what percentage of football fans are die-hards? There are plenty of bandwaggoners who are happy to jump ship when one team wins and another loses. Or when one gets a new, marketable logo.

Then there's the creation of new fans, from children and other people just being introduced to the sport.

There's a ton of competition for fans, and for fans' dollars.

You don't have to be a "die hard" to have an allegiance. Most of the time it's simply based on geography, and by extension, the people around you. If I don't really care about the Giants, but they're going to the Super Bowl and everyone I work with is getting in to it, maybe I'll go buy a shirt and wear it just to be part of the party. However, if I'm that same person, there's no way I'd buy an Eagles shirt if I wasn't a fan. I have to believe that the percentage of people who could be swayed by a catchy slogan to buy a Giants jersey vs. an Eagles jersey is incredibly small. If the Eagles turned off their marketing machine for an entire year, they may not sell as much crap to their fans, but I'd bet that you wouldn't see a spike (or even a noticeable upward swing) in Giants sales either.

[Gothamite]

Ah, but you're not a fairweather fan.

I have a friend in the Poconos who does just that - he's not a huge football fan but he likes watching the games, enjoys dabbling in the culture. He sometimes follows the Giants, and sometimes the Eagles, based largely on "how entertaining the games are" (which is a nice way of saying whoever is losing less). He's also been known to change teams based on who comes to his barbecues, which I guess makes them less contentious. That fickle relationship extends to his wallet - his closet has been known to house both blue and green.

But that might not be the best example, since those teams have a built-in rivalry which discourages crossing over to all but the most casual observer. It's easier to think of such examples in a two-team market. There are certainly people who prefer the Giants sometimes and the Jets sometimes, who buy merchandise for both teams. That relationship, directly and openly competing for fan and sponsor dollars against affiliated organizations, isn't present in a tradional franchise arrangement like McDonald's.

[BBTV]

Ah, but you're not a fairweather fan.

I have a friend in the Poconos who does just that - he's not a huge football fan but he likes watching the games, enjoys dabbling in the culture. He sometimes follows the Giants, and sometimes the Eagles, based largely on "how entertaining the games are" (which is a nice way of saying whoever is losing less). He's also been known to change teams based on who comes to his barbecues, which I guess makes them less contentious. That fickle relationship extends to his wallet - his closet has been known to house both blue and green.

But that might not be the best example, since those teams have a built-in rivalry which discourages crossing over to all but the most casual observer. It's easier to think of such examples in a two-team market. There are certainly people who prefer the Giants sometimes and the Jets sometimes, who buy merchandise for both teams. That relationship, directly and openly competing for fan and sponsor dollars against affiliated organizations, isn't present in a tradional franchise arrangement like McDonald's.

I think your pocono example isn't good, because while teams certainly market themselves outside of their direct market (the Steelers for example market everywhere in PA except for the Philadelphia region), I simply can't imagine that the number of fans they're competing for is that dramatic. I think it's very small. It's certainly possible to cite individual examples, but I don't think that really proves anything. Maybe in a two-team market it's a bigger deal, but there's only one of those now (unless you count SF/OAK).

It'd say they compete more against other teams in their city than they do other teams in their sport. For example, the Eagles are constantly trying to upstage the Phillies, and always seem to time announcements and events around days that the Phillies are supposed to be getting the attention. They also refuse to show Phillies scores at all in the stadium when the two teams are playing at the same time.

[Gothamite]

Cross-sport competition is certainly true, but the presence of one type of competition does not negate the other.

[BBTV]

True, but my point is that the other is negligable.