Comments on: Recap: Supreme Court hears argument in American Needle v. NFL

By: Chang Deuell

Chang Deuell — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:06:06 +0000

Hi just thought I would tell you something. This is twice now I’ve landed on your blog in the last 3 weeks looking for completely unrelated things. You’ve done a great job promoting your site. Love it!

By: Brady Krinsky

Brady Krinsky — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:05:56 +0000

Hey just thought I would tell you something. This is twice now I’ve landed on your blog in the last 3 weeks looking for totally unrelated things. You’ve done a great job promoting your site. Love it!

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:56:25 +0000

After some thought, I’m a little confused by something that strikes me as a glaring inconsistency in the NFL’s argument that fan apparel is merely meant to “promote” the game akin to “placing flyers under windshields.” Flyers under windshields are free, and distributed widely in order to catch the attention of as many people as possible. Fans buying hats, jerseys, and jackets, not so much.

In my mind, that argument falls apart. If the NFL is really selling team gear solely to “promote” the game, why is there an interest in consolidating all the rights into Reebok? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to sell licensing rights to as many manufacturers as possible in order to generate more fan items (thereby simultaneously making them more affordable and more prevalent, increasing the NFL’s “promotion”).

Also, if the team ballcap is really meant to just advertise the fact that there’s a “Saints-Redskins game this Sunday,” Why is it often difficult to get out-of-market merchandise other than online? Wouldn’t the NFL rather increase the presence and awareness of out-of-market teams to “promote” when those teams come to town?

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:12:47 +0000

Not an attorney, but it seems that NFL counsel’s belief that the current Court leans pro-business obscured the long-held concern about an “activist” judiciary. The “rule of reason” test, if that is the legal application that comes out of this review, appears to be a confirmation of a Court that is both pro-business and strictly interpreting precedent and law … I know that is black-and-white, but am I missing something?

By: Sean Payton has nothing to say about the OPOY | Outside the Clubhouse

Sean Payton has nothing to say about the OPOY | Outside the Clubhouse — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:09:48 +0000

[...] For the season. … Everything else in sports news is purely legal … A great site to follow the NFL’s Supreme Court case … and how to understand what the Florida Marlins have done since [...]

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:19:38 +0000

I wonder if it will be brought up the fact that when a new franchise is sold, all the team owners at the time get an equal share of the sale price, kind of like when a new partner buys into a business. This would suggest that all the franchises are connected under the NFL “shield” and although they compete on the field, they are financially partners off it. If the NFL can successfully argue on that point, they might win the case rather easily.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:59:50 +0000

The interesting thing is that the NFL pushed for certiorari. American Needle of course made a petition, but the question isn’t terribly interesting (NCAA was a loser in their case 25 years ago, but the case broadly confirmed that the essentials of running a sports league are immune from antitrust immunity), there’s no circuit split on the issue, and the government petitioned SCOTUS to not take the case. However, the NFL went for broke on this. I’m not sure I entirely understand the rationale, unless they feel that the composition of justices that would conceivably create a broad antitrust exemption will never be better than it is now, and figure that, no matter what, they’re going to win on the merits (even if its the narrower grounds of the 7th Circuit that are upheld).

My best guess is that they figured SCOTUS would never grant cert on such an uninteresting case unless it was to pronounce a broad sports exemption, but now that cert has actually been granted, that’s hardly clear.

By: ntm

ntm — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:27:49 +0000

These kinds of things remind me of why I think we could have another pro league. Right now college football is the minor league- for better or worse. I think it would have to be a regional thing – so no usfl- mainly for logistics purposes. Also, not in the south. They don’t so much love football as they love THEIR college’s football. Anything else would be competing with the main dish. I have a hunch that a league in the upper northwest would have some legs. Open minded-educated people with some money to spend on such a thing.

Also, I am rooting for American Needle here.