The Big Ol' Counterfeit Jersey Thread

[IceCap]

Exactly. Maybe it's the broad use of the term, but I really take no issue with the NFL having a monopoly on NFL merchandise.

[BlueSky]

as someone with a history degree,

Hey I have one of those! Cool!

my point in bringing up the founding fathers argument, is that breaking the law can be seen as a noble thing if the law-breaker firmly believes that they are supporting a greater good. The founding fathers committed treason in order to create this country. Is refusing to pay the markup for Reebok and whatever sports league and so purchasing an illegal counterfeit jersey an act of justifiable defiance? I'm not saying that it is, but I am certain that some, perhaps many, will.

Not only is it NOT an act of justifiable defiance, it doesn't even BELONG in the same discussion as the founding of the United States. On one hand you have a group of people who believed their states were being taxed unfairly and so they decided to form a new nation based on the principals of the Enlightenment. On the other hand we have a group of people who making (often) shoddy replicas of sports jerseys to sell at prices below what the official ones sell for. They're profiting off of the copyrights of these leagues and teams and off of the ignorance of the consumer. To even suggest that someone making/selling illegal counterfeits is acting in the same spirit as the American founding fathers is downright insulting to the founding fathers' legacy.

Counterfeiting in no way supports a "greater good." They're crooks making illegal copies off of other people's legal copyrights and selling them to consumers who, to be honest, are unaware that they may be buying a fake. These are not selfless icons of morality standing up to the big bad sports leagues and the manufacturers. They're scumbags who profit off of other people's intellectual property and the ignorance of the consumer.

I brought that up because of the large amount of people citing illegalities as the primary reason not to buy one, and they had little resistance to that argument. Sometimes, laws are wrong, or at least shouldn't exist. For anyone who wants to take up that idea and run with it, be my guest.

We're not talking about the Nuremberg Laws or Jim Crow Laws here pal. The law in this case is a league/team's right to own the exclusive rights over its own intellectual property. Is that law wrong? If not, then there's no debate here. The counterfeiters are both morally and legally in the wrong.

Also, for the sake of argument, to anybody (and I'm not citing anybody, I haven't even reread the thread to see if anybody acted this way) who sees themselves as a moral role model, following the letter of the law and refusing to break it, have you ever gone over a speed limit? run a yellow light and had it turn red in the intersection? Got a ticket? They're all laws on the books, and not very obscure ones. People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

This is the cheapest, by far, argument ever thrown around in this debate. Perhaps you missed this life lesson growing up, but two wrongs do not make a right. Someone else's violation of the law does not give you a free pass to break another law. That seems pretty straight forward, but I guess it would slip by someone who has the nerve to compare counterfeiters of NFL jerseys to America's founding fathers.

Furthermore distinctions need to be made, and your "everyone violates the law" argument is so paper thin and broad that it really doesn't hold up in this argument when those distinctions are made.

For the record, yes I have gotten a few tickets, for a few different traffic offences. You know what I did? I paid them. I broke the law, I was punished accordingly, and I paid my punishment. As in I got caught breaking the law and I paid the proper consequences. What consequences have you (a general you to anyone who's bought, sold, or manufactured a counterfeit jersey) paid for your breaking of the law?

---

monopolizing the industry.

Quoted for truth.

The monopoly on rights is exactly why the prices are so high. When true competition is allowed prices go down and quality goes up. A monopoly means that the major sports leagues can put as high of a price as they want on the jerseys so long as people still buy them. They take such issue with 'counterfeits' because they really put a stitch in the side of their monopoly. Sure they can say, make similar products with the same colors, people will buy them, but the fact of the matter is authentic jerseys are what the consumer wants. Nobody wants a k-mart shiny t-shirt in place of an authentic jersey. They do not hold a monopoly on team apparel, they hold a monopoly on authentic jerseys, and they're making a killing.

I'm going to have to disagree.

You're argument is essentially "the *insert league here* has a monopoly over the production and sale of goods that use the *insert league here*'s various intellectual properties." Of course they do. That's just not them. That applies to everyone. Everyone has a "monopoly" over their own intellectual property. That's how copyrights work.

Bruce Springsteen's record company has a monopoly on selling Bruce Springsteen CDs. Score one for rationalizing piracy.

C'mon, man. Of course they own their own IP. The issue is giving one company (EA Sports for Madden, Reebok for jerseys, etc.) exclusive licenses. Don't you think Madden would be better and/or cheaper if there was another company allowed to make NFL video games?

[hockey week]

as someone with a history degree,

Hey I have one of those! Cool!

my point in bringing up the founding fathers argument, is that breaking the law can be seen as a noble thing if the law-breaker firmly believes that they are supporting a greater good. The founding fathers committed treason in order to create this country. Is refusing to pay the markup for Reebok and whatever sports league and so purchasing an illegal counterfeit jersey an act of justifiable defiance? I'm not saying that it is, but I am certain that some, perhaps many, will.

Not only is it NOT an act of justifiable defiance, it doesn't even BELONG in the same discussion as the founding of the United States. On one hand you have a group of people who believed their states were being taxed unfairly and so they decided to form a new nation based on the principals of the Enlightenment. On the other hand we have a group of people who making (often) shoddy replicas of sports jerseys to sell at prices below what the official ones sell for. They're profiting off of the copyrights of these leagues and teams and off of the ignorance of the consumer. To even suggest that someone making/selling illegal counterfeits is acting in the same spirit as the American founding fathers is downright insulting to the founding fathers' legacy.

Counterfeiting in no way supports a "greater good." They're crooks making illegal copies off of other people's legal copyrights and selling them to consumers who, to be honest, are unaware that they may be buying a fake. These are not selfless icons of morality standing up to the big bad sports leagues and the manufacturers. They're scumbags who profit off of other people's intellectual property and the ignorance of the consumer.

I brought that up because of the large amount of people citing illegalities as the primary reason not to buy one, and they had little resistance to that argument. Sometimes, laws are wrong, or at least shouldn't exist. For anyone who wants to take up that idea and run with it, be my guest.

We're not talking about the Nuremberg Laws or Jim Crow Laws here pal. The law in this case is a league/team's right to own the exclusive rights over its own intellectual property. Is that law wrong? If not, then there's no debate here. The counterfeiters are both morally and legally in the wrong.

Also, for the sake of argument, to anybody (and I'm not citing anybody, I haven't even reread the thread to see if anybody acted this way) who sees themselves as a moral role model, following the letter of the law and refusing to break it, have you ever gone over a speed limit? run a yellow light and had it turn red in the intersection? Got a ticket? They're all laws on the books, and not very obscure ones. People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

This is the cheapest, by far, argument ever thrown around in this debate. Perhaps you missed this life lesson growing up, but two wrongs do not make a right. Someone else's violation of the law does not give you a free pass to break another law. That seems pretty straight forward, but I guess it would slip by someone who has the nerve to compare counterfeiters of NFL jerseys to America's founding fathers.

Furthermore distinctions need to be made, and your "everyone violates the law" argument is so paper thin and broad that it really doesn't hold up in this argument when those distinctions are made.

For the record, yes I have gotten a few tickets, for a few different traffic offences. You know what I did? I paid them. I broke the law, I was punished accordingly, and I paid my punishment. As in I got caught breaking the law and I paid the proper consequences. What consequences have you (a general you to anyone who's bought, sold, or manufactured a counterfeit jersey) paid for your breaking of the law?

---

monopolizing the industry.

Quoted for truth.

The monopoly on rights is exactly why the prices are so high. When true competition is allowed prices go down and quality goes up. A monopoly means that the major sports leagues can put as high of a price as they want on the jerseys so long as people still buy them. They take such issue with 'counterfeits' because they really put a stitch in the side of their monopoly. Sure they can say, make similar products with the same colors, people will buy them, but the fact of the matter is authentic jerseys are what the consumer wants. Nobody wants a k-mart shiny t-shirt in place of an authentic jersey. They do not hold a monopoly on team apparel, they hold a monopoly on authentic jerseys, and they're making a killing.

I'm going to have to disagree.

You're argument is essentially "the *insert league here* has a monopoly over the production and sale of goods that use the *insert league here*'s various intellectual properties." Of course they do. That's just not them. That applies to everyone. Everyone has a "monopoly" over their own intellectual property. That's how copyrights work.

In an argument where people are claiming moral high grounds all over the place, looking down on the people that would dare buy one of these counterfeits, I'm merely trying to give some fodder to the losing side so this argument can be less about moral fiber and more about the issue itself. it's always been a great tool in propaganda (called Appeal to Emotional Terms) to link one's argument to things people feel strongly about only in one way. To do so, I was hoping to hear less of people looking down their nose at the argument, and actually getting in the muck of it and debating, as you note, I've said numerous times that I don't own any, I own a ton of the real thing, and while I don't know where exactly I stand on the issue, it isn't pro-counterfeit (more anti-reebok, if anything).

Honestly though, if you talked to an average Joe on the street, one who isn't a designer and doesn't dabble in sports logos, I'd bet money that they'd find the amount of damage done by speeding (in the forms of accidents, tickets, you name it) is far more egregious than theft of intellectual property. So no, it's not "two wrong make a right", it's "let's put it in perspective".

But excellent points, and I'm glad somebody is standing up to my arguments

[Sec19Row53]

So I sat behind a real Aaron Rodgers jersey and a counterfeit one at Lambeau on Sunday. My wife, who knows I'm obsessive about this stuff, served as my "average person". When I asked her if she saw a difference between the two, she looked carefully, knowing that I woudn't have asked unless there were differences. She couldn't see them until I pointed them out.

The counterfeit had fatter uniform numbers, incorrect TV numbers, and the wrong shade of yellow in the collar. The nameplate was wrong on the counterfeit, but not so wrong that I can give you the blow-by-blow details from memory.

Just my observation.

[OnWis97]

Bruce Springsteen's record company has a monopoly on selling Bruce Springsteen CDs. Score one for rationalizing piracy.

C'mon, man. Of course they own their own IP. The issue is giving one company (EA Sports for Madden, Reebok for jerseys, etc.) exclusive licenses. Don't you think Madden would be better and/or cheaper if there was another company allowed to make NFL video games?

I know less about video games than anyone. But competitors can still make football video games. Do they have a right to produce the "NFL" video game or just the right to produce a competing "football" video game? And other companies can still make clothing...sports clothing. Albeit that some lame fashion "football" jersey does not compare to a (insert team) jersey, but the NFL does not need to let anyone use their imaging any more than, say, Aeropostale does.

So when we use "monopoly" are we implying that it should be illegal? Are we implying that anyone should be able to make NFL-based clothing? Because if not, then it's still just "I deserve a cheap jersey" to me. And if so, then I'd have to disagree.

[OnWis97]

So I sat behind a real Aaron Rodgers jersey and a counterfeit one at Lambeau on Sunday. My wife, who knows I'm obsessive about this stuff, served as my "average person". When I asked her if she saw a difference between the two, she looked carefully, knowing that I woudn't have asked unless there were differences. She couldn't see them until I pointed them out.

The counterfeit had fatter uniform numbers, incorrect TV numbers, and the wrong shade of yellow in the collar. The nameplate was wrong on the counterfeit, but not so wrong that I can give you the blow-by-blow details from memory.

Just my observation.

And THAT, combined with ebay/internet commerce is why the fakes are flourishing. Very few fans notice subtle changes and most would never notice some really inaccurate stuff unless it was pointed out to them, and then would not really get that hung up about it. The Twins jerseys I see have awful numbers and oversized wordmarks, but the owners probably don't know and about 5% of the other fans that see it even realize.

And I honestly doubt that the majority of the purchasers even understand that these are not legal/licensed.

So I don't see it going away.

[ksupilot]

For example...the new Maple Leafs jerseys. All I have heard in discussions is that the counterfeits are terrible, a waste of money, and just plain awful looking. Now maybe it is because I am not a Leafs fan, but for the most part, the counterfeits look pretty close to me.

The recent events with Braylon Edwards reminded me why I prefer the fake jerseys. I bought a Edwards fake for $35...now he may be suspended, be thrown in jail, never play for the Jets again after this year. I'm only out $35, instead of the $80 I was out for my crappy Favre replica.

Maybe the Devils don't resign Parise next summer...well I'm only out $60, instead of the $150 a Premier jersey would have cost me.

Not to mention if I am at the bar and some jerk spills beer / food on me. I wore one of my jerseys on a trip home once, and even though I was as careful as possible, I still managed to spill coffee down the front.

If someone really takes the time to come up to me at a game and point out that I have a fake, I will calmly walk with them back up the tunnel, and point out that there is a game currently going on and that they need to get a life.

[BlueSky]

Bruce Springsteen's record company has a monopoly on selling Bruce Springsteen CDs. Score one for rationalizing piracy.

C'mon, man. Of course they own their own IP. The issue is giving one company (EA Sports for Madden, Reebok for jerseys, etc.) exclusive licenses. Don't you think Madden would be better and/or cheaper if there was another company allowed to make NFL video games?

I know less about video games than anyone. But competitors can still make football video games. Do they have a right to produce the "NFL" video game or just the right to produce a competing "football" video game? And other companies can still make clothing...sports clothing. Albeit that some lame fashion "football" jersey does not compare to a (insert team) jersey, but the NFL does not need to let anyone use their imaging any more than, say, Aeropostale does.

So when we use "monopoly" are we implying that it should be illegal? Are we implying that anyone should be able to make NFL-based clothing? Because if not, then it's still just "I deserve a cheap jersey" to me. And if so, then I'd have to disagree.

1) Sure they can, but without the NFL brand, it could be the greatest thing around and still not be much of a marketing success.

2) That's been a question argued over and over. You may be too young to remember, but did you know AT&T used to be basically the only phone company? Eight years of anti-trust litigation later, a judge ordered it broken up because it was a monopoly. We don't have the time or space to debate that specific instance but the point is that nothing good usually comes from a lack of competition.

Competition is what drives companies to provide better service, make better products, and keep costs in line. Because if the customer has no other choice, what incentive does a company have to do better? Does anyone disagree that if we had NFL2K10 or whatever it would be called now, both it and Madden would be better and cheaper because they'd be battling each other for market share?

What kind of computer do you have? What if that brand was the only one available? Would it be as good or as cheap as computers are now? Look at the post office. If FedEx or UPS are ever allowed to carry mail, it'll be cheaper almost instantly. Why? Because for mail, we have no other choice. The post office has no incentive to be more efficient because when they need more money, all they have to do is raise their price.

When the NFL gives one company - DirecTV, EASports, Reebok - an exclusive license, along with it comes the ability to screw the customer.

For example...the new Maple Leafs jerseys. All I have heard in discussions is that the counterfeits are terrible, a waste of money, and just plain awful looking. Now maybe it is because I am not a Leafs fan, but for the most part, the counterfeits look pretty close to me.

The recent events with Braylon Edwards reminded me why I prefer the fake jerseys. I bought a Edwards fake for $35...now he may be suspended, be thrown in jail, never play for the Jets again after this year. I'm only out $35, instead of the $80 I was out for my crappy Favre replica.

Maybe the Devils don't resign Parise next summer...well I'm only out $60, instead of the $150 a Premier jersey would have cost me.

Not to mention if I am at the bar and some jerk spills beer / food on me. I wore one of my jerseys on a trip home once, and even though I was as careful as possible, I still managed to spill coffee down the front.

If someone really takes the time to come up to me at a game and point out that I have a fake, I will calmly walk with them back up the tunnel, and point out that there is a game currently going on and that they need to get a life.

An outstanding point. Nothing like shelling out big bucks for a jersey only to wear it one season before that player slides out the revolving door that is the NFL in free agency.

[IceCap]

C'mon, man. Of course they own their own IP. The issue is giving one company (EA Sports for Madden, Reebok for jerseys, etc.) exclusive licenses. Don't you think Madden would be better and/or cheaper if there was another company allowed to make NFL video games?

That's not a monopoly though. A monopoly would be if Reebok were the only jersey manufacturer in town, having forced out its rivals with monopolistic tactics, thus forcing the NFL to give them the licence. Or if EA were the only video game developer around, having built up a monopoly for itself, forcing the league to go to them.

This, simply put, is not the case. Reebok and EA do exist in competitive business environments. The NFL has decided that their performance in their respective markets is good enough to warrant the licences to their products. That's business, not a monopoly. There are other video game developers out there. There are other jersey manufacturers out there. If they offered a quality of product on par with Rebook or EA, or if they had made a better case for themselves to the NFL and in the marketplace, then they could have gotten the NFL licence rather then Reebok or EA.

Monopoly is a term that tends to get thrown around a lot in these discussions. Simply put, EA and Reebok do not have monopolies. At the end of the day it's the NFL's intellectual property. They can do whatever they want with it. If they want to give one company an exclusive licence in one field or another that's completely within their rights as the holder of that IP. It's not a monopoly. Now if Reebok, DirectTV, or EA prove to be so incompetent that consumers stop buying their goods and services then the NFL will look elsewhere. There are other companies out there in the fields of cable/satellite television, video game development, and jersey manufacturing. If they keep up the quality of their goods and services, and if the holders of the NFL licences falter like so many are claiming they are for long enough, then we could see a shift.

Now I'll tell you why it makes sense for the NFL to give one manufacture the licence for team merchandise. Remember when we had multiple companies making NFL jerseys? Now each company had its own list of NFL teams that it made on-field jerseys for, but each company could make replicas of teams that they didn't have the licence to. Nike, for example, could make and sell replicas of a team they didn't work with. What we got was a market flooded by official replicas from three or four different companies, and they all varied in design, even among the same teams. A Reebok Broncos replica would look different from one made by Puma, and the one made by Nike would look different from both of them. This runs the risk of diluting the visual identities of the league's teams. By choosing one manufacturer to hold the licence for all teams the NFL sidesteps this problem.

An interesting alternative to this, however, is if we consider the NFL a collection of 32 independent pro football organizations that just band together under one banner for the purposes of forming a competitive circuit. If we take this approach, which I feel does holds a level of legitimacy, then it can be argued that the league has no right to force teams under one licence. If that's the case, and we return to multiple manufacturers, then I would want to see tighter control over what we saw in the past. That is to say that manufacturers cannot make merchandise for teams that they're not associated with. That way everyone wins, I think. A level of competition is reintroduced to the official NFL licence on team merchandise while the problems brought on by multiple versions of the same jersey in the marketplace are avoided.

As for the video games? What can I say? I've always been an EA Sports/Madden fan, even before they got the licence. To me they always produced the best football game around so it made sense to me that the NFL would choose them when they wanted to only have one official NFL game series. Unlike the jersey position I see no reason why the NFL felt it only needed on video game franchise, but at the end of the day it's there licence, and they can do what they want with it. EA doesn't have a monopoly, they have the exclusive rights to one video game series. Not the same thing.

Really, I don't see much lost there. Did anyone play Backbreaker (the new football game)? What a letdown.

For example...the new Maple Leafs jerseys. All I have heard in discussions is that the counterfeits are terrible, a waste of money, and just plain awful looking. Now maybe it is because I am not a Leafs fan, but for the most part, the counterfeits look pretty close to me.

The recent events with Braylon Edwards reminded me why I prefer the fake jerseys. I bought a Edwards fake for $35...now he may be suspended, be thrown in jail, never play for the Jets again after this year. I'm only out $35, instead of the $80 I was out for my crappy Favre replica.

Maybe the Devils don't resign Parise next summer...well I'm only out $60, instead of the $150 a Premier jersey would have cost me.

Not to mention if I am at the bar and some jerk spills beer / food on me. I wore one of my jerseys on a trip home once, and even though I was as careful as possible, I still managed to spill coffee down the front.

If someone really takes the time to come up to me at a game and point out that I have a fake, I will calmly walk with them back up the tunnel, and point out that there is a game currently going on and that they need to get a life.

An outstanding point. Nothing like shelling out big bucks for a jersey only to wear it one season before that player slides out the revolving door that is the NFL in free agency.

I'll have to disagree here. In hockey and baseball you can just buy the jerseys blank. No problem. In basketball and football, well that's the risk you run. You know full well that the player who's jersey your buying may not play for the team next season. Yet you choose to take the risk when you buy the jersey. Furthermore this problem can be sidestepped. Buy a jersey of a player who stands a high chance of staying around for a while. Buy a jersey of a high profile player from a recent championship run so that even if they leave your jersey still has meaning as a fan. Or buy a throwback/vintage jersey that often feature great players from the team's past. No problem there. As a Saints fan you're probably safe with a Drew Brees jersey, for example.

The whole "well the player may not be around much longer" problem is easily sidestepped.

[BlueSky]

C'mon, man. Of course they own their own IP. The issue is giving one company (EA Sports for Madden, Reebok for jerseys, etc.) exclusive licenses. Don't you think Madden would be better and/or cheaper if there was another company allowed to make NFL video games?

1) That's not a monopoly though. A monopoly would be if Reebok were the only jersey manufacturer in town, having forced out its rivals with monopolistic tactics, thus forcing the NFL to give them the licence. Or if EA were the only video game developer around, having built up a monopoly for itself, forcing the league to go to them.

This, simply put, is not the case. Reebok and EA do exist in competitive business environments. The NFL has decided that their performance in their respective markets is good enough to warrant the licences to their products. That's business, not a monopoly. There are other video game developers out there. There are other jersey manufacturers out there. If they offered a quality of product on par with Rebook or EA, or if they had made a better case for themselves to the NFL and in the marketplace, then they could have gotten the NFL licence rather then Reebok or EA.

Monopoly is a term that tends to get thrown around a lot in these discussions. Simply put, EA and Reebok do not have monopolies. At the end of the day it's the NFL's intellectual property. They can do whatever they want with it. If they want to give one company an exclusive licence in one field or another that's completely within their rights as the holder of that IP. It's not a monopoly. Now if Reebok, DirectTV, or EA prove to be so incompetent that consumers stop buying their goods and services then the NFL will look elsewhere. There are other companies out there in the fields of cable/satellite television, video game development, and jersey manufacturing. If they keep up the quality of their goods and services, and if the holders of the NFL licences falter like so many are claiming they are for long enough, then we could see a shift.

Now I'll tell you why it makes sense for the NFL to give one manufacture the licence for team merchandise. Remember when we had multiple companies making NFL jerseys? Now each company had its own list of NFL teams that it made on-field jerseys for, but each company could make replicas of teams that they didn't have the licence to. Nike, for example, could make and sell replicas of a team they didn't work with. What we got was a market flooded by official replicas from three or four different companies, and they all varied in design, even among the same teams. A Reebok Broncos replica would look different from one made by Puma, and the one made by Nike would look different from both of them. 2) This runs the risk of diluting the visual identities of the league's teams. By choosing one manufacturer to hold the licence for all teams the NFL sidesteps this problem.

An interesting alternative to this, however, is if we consider the NFL a collection of 32 independent pro football organizations that just band together under one banner for the purposes of forming a competitive circuit. If we take this approach, which I feel does holds a level of legitimacy, then it can be argued that the league has no right to force teams under one licence. If that's the case, and we return to multiple manufacturers, then I would want to see tighter control over what we saw in the past. That is to say that manufacturers cannot make merchandise for teams that they're not associated with. That way everyone wins, I think. A level of competition is reintroduced to the official NFL licence on team merchandise while the problems brought on by multiple versions of the same jersey in the marketplace are avoided.

As for the video games? What can I say? I've always been an EA Sports/Madden fan, even before they got the licence. To me they always produced the best football game around so it made sense to me that the NFL would choose them when they wanted to only have one official NFL game series. Unlike the jersey position I see no reason why the NFL felt it only needed on video game franchise, but at the end of the day it's there licence, and they can do what they want with it. EA doesn't have a monopoly, they have the exclusive rights to one video game series. Not the same thing.

Really, I don't see much lost there. Did anyone play Backbreaker (the new football game)? What a letdown.

1) Huh?

mo·nop·o·ly   

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. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.

5. a company or group that has such control.

6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

7. ( initial capital letter ) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property.

Okay, you win on #'s 2 & 7. Otherwise, please explain how, from the customer's perpective, DirecTV, Reebok, and EASports don't enjoy a monopoly.

2) Yeah, we wouldn't want that, not in a league that values visual identity so highly.

They take the 'uni' out of uniform...

...and seriously, did Finley's mom pick up his game jersey off the clearance rack at Big Lots? It looks like a bad homemade.

For example...the new Maple Leafs jerseys. All I have heard in discussions is that the counterfeits are terrible, a waste of money, and just plain awful looking. Now maybe it is because I am not a Leafs fan, but for the most part, the counterfeits look pretty close to me.

The recent events with Braylon Edwards reminded me why I prefer the fake jerseys. I bought a Edwards fake for $35...now he may be suspended, be thrown in jail, never play for the Jets again after this year. I'm only out $35, instead of the $80 I was out for my crappy Favre replica.

Maybe the Devils don't resign Parise next summer...well I'm only out $60, instead of the $150 a Premier jersey would have cost me.

Not to mention if I am at the bar and some jerk spills beer / food on me. I wore one of my jerseys on a trip home once, and even though I was as careful as possible, I still managed to spill coffee down the front.

If someone really takes the time to come up to me at a game and point out that I have a fake, I will calmly walk with them back up the tunnel, and point out that there is a game currently going on and that they need to get a life.

An outstanding point. Nothing like shelling out big bucks for a jersey only to wear it one season before that player slides out the revolving door that is the NFL in free agency.

I'll have to disagree here. In hockey and baseball you can just buy the jerseys blank. No problem. In basketball and football, well that's the risk you run. You know full well that the player who's jersey your buying may not play for the team next season. Yet you choose to take the risk when you buy the jersey. Furthermore this problem can be sidestepped. Buy a jersey of a player who stands a high chance of staying around for a while. Buy a jersey of a high profile player from a recent championship run so that even if they leave your jersey still has meaning as a fan. Or buy a throwback/vintage jersey that often feature great players from the team's past. No problem there. As a Saints fan you're probably safe with a Drew Brees jersey, for example.

The whole "well the player may not be around much longer" problem is easily sidestepped.

Fair point, but it still sucks to pay what they charge for a player who may not be around.

[BBTV]

So the NFL is creating a monopoly on the distribution of NFL licenses? They could go a step further, and bring everything in house and just have the "NFL Brand" and not even sell licenses to Reebok, Nike, or anyone else. Nike is the only company allowed to manufacture shirts with their swoosh on them, is that a monopoly? Nike shirts would be cheaper if Reebok and Under Armor could get licenses to market the swoosh. I'm not sure that's really what monopoly is all about. If they created such barriers to entry that nobody could set up a new football league, or if they just bought up all rival football leagues, then they would really have a monopoly. I don't understand why one isn't allowed to control the distribution of it's own privately developed IP.

It's not like we're talking about public resources here, like a utility company or something. This is stuff that nobody really needs. Not to get political, but I'm all for more govt regulation in industry. But you can't really regulate something that nobody really needs.

[BlueSky]

I didn't say it should be regulated nor did I say the NFL shouldn't control its own licenses and so on. They certainly can. My point is that any monopoly is usually very bad news for customers. Check the airfares out of Newark.

[CreamSoda]

I bought a Fabregas #4 Arsenal Kit last year from China. Was it a counterfit? Probably. It has all the Nike Tags and EPL licenses, but for 20 bucks I assumed there was something not quite official about it.

It arrived quickly, looked great and had no mistakes. The correct font was used and the patches were accurate for both Arsenal and the Barclays side patch.

[Sec19Row53]

I bought a Fabregas #4 Arsenal Kit last year from China. (1)Was it a counterfit? Probably. It has all the Nike Tags and EPL licenses, but for 20 bucks I assumed there was something not quite official about it.

It arrived quickly, looked great and (2)had no mistakes. The correct font was used and the patches were accurate for both Arsenal and the Barclays side patch.

1 - The correct answer is YES, not probably

2 - Post it here, and I'm betting someone who knows Arsenal Kits would shoot that down in a hurry.

[crashcarson15]

I love pointing out fakes at school to other kids and describing what's wrong with them.

[Ryoma]

I bought a Fabregas #4 Arsenal Kit last year from China. (1)Was it a counterfit? Probably. It has all the Nike Tags and EPL licenses, but for 20 bucks I assumed there was something not quite official about it.

It arrived quickly, looked great and (2)had no mistakes. The correct font was used and the patches were accurate for both Arsenal and the Barclays side patch.

1 - The correct answer is YES, not probably

2 - Post it here, and I'm betting someone who knows Arsenal Kits would shoot that down in a hurry.

As someone who has purchased a couple of fake soccer jerseys, it's actually a little bit harder to discern the authenticity of one from a picture if there are no glaring issues. Often the issues with soccer jerseys pertain to the material the numbers are made out of (if you bought a jersey at the store that was name/numbered, it would have felt letters while fakes usually have some sort of plastic-y material) and the material the actual jersey is made out of, although that can vary.

If it was purchased from China though, it's a fake. No doubt.

[TBGKon]

Why didn't anyone mention this yet?

LOL the URL even says yellow! Also, the Packers' tab says Green pay

That jersey is most definitly yellow in person as well. Saw a few of them when I was at the Bucs-Browns game a few weeks ago, and next to our regular creamsicles they are awful.

Oh, and how about this one. I know it's fake, but it's a nice job:

[TBGKon]

C'mon, man. Of course they own their own IP. The issue is giving one company (EA Sports for Madden, Reebok for jerseys, etc.) exclusive licenses. Don't you think Madden would be better and/or cheaper if there was another company allowed to make NFL video games?

Agreed, I can recall back before the Reebok exclusive deal came into play, replica jersey store price was about $5, sometimes less. Then all of a sudden, Big Reebok goes exclusive and the same jersey that I bought the year before is now $70.

Please tell me something is wrong with this picture?

[charger77]

I love pointing out fakes at school to other kids and describing what's wrong with them.

I went to a Jackets/Hawks game in Columbus last spring with the gf. By the 2nd period she was picking out the Chicago fakes!

-Dan

[Waleslax]

C'mon, man. Of course they own their own IP. The issue is giving one company (EA Sports for Madden, Reebok for jerseys, etc.) exclusive licenses. Don't you think Madden would be better and/or cheaper if there was another company allowed to make NFL video games?

Agreed, I can recall back before the Reebok exclusive deal came into play, replica jersey store price was about $5, sometimes less. Then all of a sudden, Big Reebok goes exclusive and the same jersey that I bought the year before is now $70.

Please tell me something is wrong with this picture?

$5? Really Grandpa Simpson? Really?