Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

[LiquorLogic]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

LiquorLogic - I agree that it does mean its very slightly less likely that they will renew it (combined with the fact that the money the NFL would want to renew it is going to be off the charts), however it really doesn't add much work to renewing it if they really want, they simply have to go to the teams and ask them do they want to be in the videogame or not. I doubt any team is going to say no. Personally I hope they don't renew it.

They'd have to go to each team and get them to sign exclusively with the NFL. Wouldn't that be the same difference ?

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

P.S. - I still disagree with the whole "NFL and EA" conspired to eliminate competition. To conspire it takes more than one party and the NFL is allowed legally to sell its trademark to whoever it wants to market it, there is no conspiracy on there part to eliminate competition, they are the deciders of what to do with the brand.

The NFL is isn't one party. They are 32 separate parties, with 32 different owners, so they can definitely conspire with each other. The Supreme Court doesn't consider the NFL to be a single entity, or one party.

You're looking at the NFL like they're McDonald's; in actuality, the NFL is like McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Outback, Applebee's and whatever other restaurant. If Coca-Cola had exclusive deals with every major restaurant I think the courts might have a problem with that.

[Critical Kills]

LiquorLogic - the NFL is a shield under which all of the teams fall. This recent decision does not change that, it only mandates that the teams themselves must negotiate contracts like the EA one. It's really semantics going forward because the teams will still be splitting revenue equally per their internal agreements on contracts like the EA Madden one so it's not as if the Cowboys can ask for 11 million dollars to be in Madden whereas the Cardinals are only going to be able to get 8 million dollars to appear in the game. The only aspect to negotiating with the teams individually vs. doing so in regards to negotiating with the NFL will be to negotiate if a team does not wish to participate in the contract or if they do. And as I said before, what team owner is going to keep their team out of Madden or contracts like it? And of course there will be other contracts on individual team basis which will continue to operate the way they do now (i.e Dallas Cowboys signing contracts with Nike, whereas other teams go with Reeboks, etc).

Again, it may seem like a huge decision, the American Needle case, but it really is more about the methodology of the contract negotiation for the types of contracts that involve all of the teams, such as DirecTV Sunday Ticket and Madden than anything else. Those sorts of contracts will ALWAYS be based on evenly split revenue sharing so the only aspect of negotiating for the individual teams is going to be opting in or opting out and you will never see any teams opting out of those sorts of contracts. It's not really going to change the way the NFL does business and it's not going to create any different business practices for the most part IMO.

[LiquorLogic]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

LiquorLogic - the NFL is a shield under which all of the teams fall. This recent decision does not change that, it only mandates that the teams themselves must negotiate contracts like the EA one. It's really semantics going forward because the teams will still be splitting revenue equally per their internal agreements on contracts like the EA Madden one so it's not as if the Cowboys can ask for 11 million dollars to be in Madden whereas the Cardinals are only going to be able to get 8 million dollars to appear in the game. The only aspect to negotiating with the teams individually vs. doing so in regards to negotiating with the NFL will be to negotiate if a team does not wish to participate in the contract or if they do. And as I said before, what team owner is going to keep their team out of Madden or contracts like it? And of course there will be other contracts on individual team basis which will continue to operate the way they do now (i.e Dallas Cowboys signing contracts with Nike, whereas other teams go with Reeboks, etc). Again, it may seem like a huge decision, the American Needle case, but it really is more about the methodology of the contract negotiation for the types of contracts that involve all of the teams, such as DirecTV Sunday Ticket and Madden than anything else. Those sorts of contracts will ALWAYS be based on evenly split revenue sharing so the only aspect of negotiating for the individual teams is going to be opting in or opting out and you will never see any teams opting out of those sorts of contracts. It's not really going to change the way the NFL does business and it's not going to create any different business practices for the most part IMO.

It looks like it already has.

"The lawsuit was filed by American Needle Inc., which until 2000 had a contract to sell team caps. The NFL decided to award all of its apparel franchises to Reebok"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rss=rss_nation


"Under the new agreements, the NFL split the onfield apparel license among Nike and privately held New Era."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B4D320101012

[Critical Kills]

Yeah for something like team shirts, caps or something then as I said, stuff like that will continue to be more about the individual teams. But for contracts on a single entity sold in all markets, such as a DirecTV package or a Madden football game those will not change how they're locked up, other than the semantics of how the deal is done so as to comply by the most recent court decision as I explained in my last post.

[LiquorLogic]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

Yeah for something like team shirts, caps or something then as I said, stuff like that will continue to be more about the individual teams. But for contracts on a single entity sold in all markets, such as a DirecTV package or a Madden football game those will not change how they're locked up, other than the semantics of how the deal is done so as to comply by the most recent court decision as I explained in my last post.

I disagree, since the NFL isn't exempt from anti-trust scrutiny they may not want to take the risk of making exclusive deals and having to go to court again. They're not going to have to rip up contracts now, but this may discourage them from making deals like this in the future. If the every team signed exclusively with EA, that wouldn't look to good to the courts. Exclusive deals are more expensive than non-exclusive ones, so if every team takes more money from EA and exclusively gives EA their rights, locking out the competition and harming the consumer, how would they, the NFL, convince a court that they're not conspiring with each other to eliminate the competition ?

[Critical Kills]

The American Needle case wasn't centered on the exclusivity of the deal so much as the deal was brokered under the NFL as a single entity aspect rather than the deal was brokered with all individual 32 teams. There will still be plenty of exclusive deals, they will just be negotiated in a different manner in order to discourage the ability for future lawsuits like this one.

As for your last question "how would the NFL convince a court they're not conspiring to eliminate the competition"...the NFL does not have to ensure competition beyond the initial bidding process for the contract. That is the competition.

[Kaanyr Vhok]

Quote: Originally Posted by khaliib

I just don't get it. Why try the legal route, when there's another way. A developer makes a football game with full customization (combo of NBA 2k11/Backbreaker) and they don't have to shell out money for a license or player likeness. The first thing people do when they get a game is editing. Whether ratings, sliders or uniforms, it all depends on what editing features are open to them to use. "Focus on the engine (gameplay), provied the body (presentation/franchise/online), give us some paints (full customization) and the gaming community will color it how they like it." If I want NFL, I'll make it. If I want College, I'll do it. Maybe Juco or Highschool, it's on the gamer. The point to this rant, is that there is an easier way around Exclusive Licenses w/out all the drama.

Bingo. Its pretty easy to put NFL rosters in Backbreaker but its not NBA 2k share easy. I'm not sure if this is legal but if it is it would lower the value of the license and thats a good thing

[LiquorLogic]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

The American Needle case wasn't centered on the exclusivity of the deal so much as the deal was brokered under the NFL as a single entity aspect rather than the deal was brokered with all individual 32 teams. There will still be plenty of exclusive deals, they will just be negotiated in a different manner in order to discourage the ability for future lawsuits like this one. As for your last question "how would the NFL convince a court they're not conspiring to eliminate the competition"...the NFL does not have to ensure competition beyond the initial bidding process for the contract. That is the competition.

The exclusivity and the fact that NFL brokered the deal as one entity, when the NFL isn't one entity, both play a big part in the lawsuit. Remember, in the lower court, the NFL argued that they were a single-entity, so they couldn't conspire with themselves, and it was perfectly legal for them to exclusively go with Reebok. The lower courts agreed and threw the case out, but American Needle Appealed, and the SCOTUS has declared the NFL to be more than one entity.

To me, negotiating exclusive deals with every NFL team would obviously be suspect. Again, how would the deal have looked if Reebok had individually secured the exclusive rights to every team, and locking out American Needle in the process ?

The NFL, up until now, has been able to construct exclusive deals because they were considered a single-entity. Now they aren't, so I don't understand your logic that the NFL just has to alter the way they broker their exclusive deals. If one team brokers a deal with EA, exclusively, that's fine. If all of the teams sign exclusively with EA, there's is a problem.