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

By: Hien Ponder

Hien Ponder — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 22:44:06 +0000

Excellent post – I found it to be written well. It was very informative!

By: Clotilde Durrell

Clotilde Durrell — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 07:10:24 +0000

Thank you for taking this possiblity to discuss this, I am strongly about this and I make use of researching this subject. If at all possible, because you gain data, please update this website with new information. I have found it extremely useful.

By: football

football — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:22:39 +0000

I miss the days of the XFL and NFL Europe etc. Developing players need an outlet. Anti-trust / monopoly is probably taking it too far. It is big-budget franchises like the NFL that prove the point that this is getting out of hand. But now with the tough economic times, somebody would have to be crazy to even talk about a new league or monopolies. The NFL will take their licks in declining ticket sales in the foreseeable future. Except maybe in New Orleans who opens this week against the Vikings… Can’t wait.

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.