The Big Ol' Counterfeit Jersey Thread

[tubby34]

If you have to go that far to justify it, then it's wrong. Who are you to analyze their production costs, labor costs, rights fees, etc., and then decide what the fair markup should be? You know far less than you think

Who are you to over analyze my rush-hour drivetime thoughts while displaying no information of your own? I raised a valid point. If the cost of production is so much lower then the retail cost, why isn't it passed onto the customers?

Until the product is produced domestically, I don't care who buys them or what they do with them. I'm not going to buy them though.

Just stating my opinion, if you don't like that then you can use the block feature on every member of this board---everyones opinion helps develop the community here.

Why exactly is it necessary to go out of your way to specify that the bootleggers were white?

Because they were white---stop being racially oversensitive. (Actual thought-Maybe he's trying to show that not all Bootleggers are Asian, and some are actually other races too).

[tubby34]

Greed my friends, greed. And as long as they want to get greedy, I support Jimbo and my cousin Vinny saving their money as long as they don't cost us fellow Americans Jobs.

So doing something illegal is ok as long as it isn't an American that gets screwed?

When these unlicensed products are illegally bought and sold the NHL, NFL, MLB, NBA ect are all losing on revenue. I'm guessing an American or two gets screwed in that process.

Not just bought and sold, they are printed here too. Every single NFL replica jersey is printed in Indianapolis Indiana. All of them. They are constructed overseas and printed here. Are you costing a American their job by buying a chinese counterfeit? Maybe not that one purchase, but that's one less one that was printed by an Adult American making more than minimum wage and one more printed by a Chinese Child in a sweatshop making .20 a day. (I know you'll say "But Reebok jerseys are made in Asia." That's true, but in countries that support fair labor practices.)

And this business about authentics costing $15 is complete horse. They cost more than that (I don't know the amount) but you know who makes the most money on every jersey sold? Its the retailers. Retail 101: Retail price is double wholesale. NFL Makes a bit, the player makes a bit, and of course Reebok makes a bit. But its not like Reebok and the NFL are splitting 90% and laughing on a pile of money...

Are they expensive? Hell yes. They make Jersey Tees for like $20. They make a 4 tiers of jerseys ranging in price from $40 to $280. It sucks, but you don't have a right to own a jersey. If you can't afford it you can't afford it. But you shouldn't support counterfeiters for a variety of reasons from you're outright stealing to supporting child/sweatshop labor.

Well, I did not know they were Screen Printed in Indianapolis. Pretty cool somethign is kept in the USA atleast.

If retail markup is 100% then I'm assuming rights fees and everything comes out to 140 or so. Still alot cheaper.

i gotta stress this again before it becomes a "Your a piece of for owning a fake jersey" thread...I don't own one or want one---I just can see why others would and didn't care really until seeing atleast one tier is made partially in USA.

[IceCap]

If you have to go that far to justify it, then it's wrong. Who are you to analyze their production costs, labor costs, rights fees, etc., and then decide what the fair markup should be? You know far less than you think

Who are you to over analyze my rush-hour drivetime thoughts while displaying no information of your own?

Who is he? Someone who understands how the law, intellectual property rights, and the basic concept of morality work.

I raised a valid point.

No, you didn't.

If you can accept that these jerseys are illegal and that by buying them you are contributing to continued illegal intellectual property theft but decide "yeah it's wrong, but I want a jersey for cheap, so it" then there's no problem. You're a big boy. If you accept something is wrong, do it anyway, and are willing to live with the consequences then that's fine.

It's when you start doing mental gymnastics to try and twist the production and purchasing of these fakes as morally right that we have a problem. Now you're failing in basic concepts of right and wrong.

If the cost of production is so much lower then the retail cost, why isn't it passed onto the customers?

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.

Until the product is produced domestically, I don't care who buys them or what they do with them. I'm not going to buy them though.

Of course we would all like to see goods from domestic companies produced in-country. Who doesn't?

Fact is, however, that a business is going to do what makes the most sense for them. If the NFL and Reebok think it's in their best interests as businesses to take production oversees it's certainly within their rights to do so. Who are you to tell them they can't?

As pcgd has stated a big part of the manufacturing process DOES take place in the US anyway.

Just stating my opinion, if you don't like that then you can use the block feature on every member of this board---everyones opinion helps develop the community here.

People have the right to post their opinions here, yes. That also means, however, that they open their opinions up to the opinions of others. In your case you've proven yourself to be someone with a limited concept of the law, intellectual property rights, and an unearned sense to entitlement. When you can't grasp the simple concept of morality you're going to be criticized by those who do.

Finally, thanks to pcgd. It's great to hear from someone close to manufacturing process chime in. Hopefully his insight will settle some of this.

[charger77]

If the cost of production is so much lower then the retail cost, why isn't it passed onto the customers?

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.

[JTernup]

I have 2 fake jerseys and at the time of purchase i just believed i was getting a good deal. (one is falling apart and one is pretty good quality.) Now that I know jerseys and can see fake from real I won't be buying any more fakes. I can now see that a small store in the mall is clearly selling fakes (so bad my mom laughs at them ) but my point is that i am not going to buy these jerseys but i would also never turn him in it is not my problem and he probably thinks that the jerseys are real.

I also see the other side of the argument too, how is it that the NFL thinks it is ok to sell jerseys that are nothing like the on-field jerseys for $250, but majestic authentics which are made in america are nearly the exact same as the on-field/game used jerseys for far less. My solution to this problem is support majestic, the MLB, and all the good American people who make MLB authentics.

This is just my opinion but why help the No Fun League when their product is made in asia and is a piece of $hit.

[Pizzaman7294]

like somebody said earlier, if you cant afford an "authentic" jersey, just buy a t-shirt jersey! YOU DONT HAVE TO HAVE A "STITCHED-ON" JERSEY!

[walby2]

I haven't done it before, but now I'm going to buy a (good) counterfeit or three just for spite.

[crashcarson15]

I have 2 fake jerseys and at the time of purchase i just believed i was getting a good deal. (one is falling apart and one is pretty good quality.) Now that I know jerseys and can see fake from real I won't be buying any more fakes. I can now see that a small store in the mall is clearly selling fakes (so bad my mom laughs at them ) but my point is that i am not going to buy these jerseys but i would also never turn him in it is not my problem and he probably thinks that the jerseys are real.

I also see the other side of the argument too, how is it that the NFL thinks it is ok to sell jerseys that are nothing like the on-field jerseys for $250, but majestic authentics which are made in america are nearly the exact same as the on-field/game used jerseys for far less. My solution to this problem is support majestic, the MLB, and all the good American people who make MLB authentics.

This is just my opinion but why help the No Fun League when their product is made in asia and is a piece of $hit.

The owner of the store would most definitely know that the jerseys he's selling aren't real. Retailers buy their jerseys straight from the league or manufacturer.

Also, there are some stores that sell say, NFL replicas for less than 80 bucks. How the system works is that Reebok sells the replica to the retailers for about 37 bucks or so IIRC. This gives the stores an option of selling them for MSRP of $80 or selling them for something less, but still profit, say $60.

[Brass]

if fakes were 15 bucks, id be all over it, but 50-60? Id rather just buy a replica for 80 by then and know that the money is going to reebok and the nfl

They're only $20 ($30 for NHL) compared to the real deal, it's much better. I've never bought a counterfeit, only replicas, but I know people who have and they have no complaints at all about them. Really, its worth saving the money, especially for college kids.

Coming from a college kid, the "I'm in college, so buying a counterfeit jersey is ok" argument is invalid.

[IceCap]

if fakes were 15 bucks, id be all over it, but 50-60? Id rather just buy a replica for 80 by then and know that the money is going to reebok and the nfl

They're only $20 ($30 for NHL) compared to the real deal, it's much better. I've never bought a counterfeit, only replicas, but I know people who have and they have no complaints at all about them. Really, its worth saving the money, especially for college kids.

Coming from a college kid, the "I'm in college, so buying a counterfeit jersey is ok" argument is invalid.

Exactly. No one's entitled to a jersey. If you can't afford one buy a t-shirt.

[BlueSky]

If the cost of production is so much lower then the retail cost, why isn't it passed onto the customers?

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.

[Drakonius26]

If the cost of production is so much lower then the retail cost, why isn't it passed onto the customers?

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.

===

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?

In all fairness, ESPN NFL 2K5 is an overrated game to begin with, and got most of its press by valuing style over substance, along with the fact it was so cheap. Personally, I'd like to see 2K Sports back producing football games, if for no other reasons to force EA Sports to enhance the quality of their product, as Madden 2004, in my mind was the last, truly great version of Madden. Though Madden 2011 was pretty fun to play.

As for as counterfeit jerseys go isn't it pretty much a reality that NO jerseys the public buys are truly authentic, and that you're pretty much just buying a higher-quality of replica than something that won't stay truly intact after a couple dozens washes or so?

[BlueSky]

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

[IceCap]

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

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.

[BlueSky]

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

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?

[Drakonius26]

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

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.

[IceCap]

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

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.

I'm ok with it because it's there legal right to do so. If the consumer base is willing to pay that much, ESPECIALLY for a luxury item, then I don't see the problem. If the market can sustain the higher prices that come with an exclusive licence then it's simply a smart business decision to go with an exclusive licence.

Let's try another question and have you answer it - what other purpose than that is there for granting an exclusive license?

Other then raising the price?

Ensuring the visual consistency of their 32 brands. Remember the days when each manufacturer's replica of a team's jersey looked different?

Streamlining the NFL's business portfolio and solidifying them as a single entity with 32 brands rather then 32 teams that operate under the same league.

Cutting away unnecessary business dealings and transfer expenses that come with multiple licensing agreements.

Even if we assume that raising prices was the primary reason for granting the exclusive licence then I still don't see a problem for the reasons I went over in the first part of this post.

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

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.

Exactly.

I love it when people try to bash EA over the exclusive licence thing. It wasn't their idea. The NFL wanted one official NFL game and offered EA the licence first. What did people expect EA to do? Say no?

[BlueSky]

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

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.

[IceCap]

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

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.

[BlueSky]

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

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.