Supreme Court Rules Against NFL
 

Source: New York Times

My reading on this ruling is that it means individual football teams can negotiate deals involving their own image and the NFL doesn't speak for them or have the ability to force them into any deals. So if I want to manufacture Packers themed merchandise, I can negotiate a contract directly with them and the NFL can't forbid them from signing any deal with me nor can the NFL force the packers into an exclusive deal with any other manufacturer. In fact, it would be illegal for the NFL to force all the teams into an exclusive deal with some other party.

What I'm wondering is what this means for EA's videogame exclusivity. In theory, Sega could develop a game with the New York Giants and neither the NFL nor EA would be able to stop them. Obviously, a game with just one team isn't one that anybody would want to play, but it might mean that EA's exclusivity deal is illegal on anti-trust grounds.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Against NFL
 

I doubt this will change much in practice. The NFL is very organized and the owners onserve the value of operating as a single entity. Each team will "idependently" choose to operate in accordance with the other owners. Some might call is a cabal, but it would be difficult to prove in court if you arguments were price fixing, etc.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Against NFL
 

Yeah, its a weird ruling.

But in theory, I would assume that EA would have to sign a contract with every major team for exclusive rights.

Or would that only be an issue if a team opposed it.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Against NFL
 

Does this mean if I want to record a football game I no longer need the expressed written consent of NBC and the NFL, but will actually need the expressed written consent of NBC and -both- teams involved?

Well that's just inconvenient.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Against NFL
 

Here's the thing though.. while the NFL doesn't own the teams and doesn't reserve the rights to sign them over exclusively anymore, that doesn't mean they lost any control over the player's association.

There have been games in history to have the player association licence and not have the NFL licence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madden_Football_64 ), but I haven't seen a game with the NFL licence and no players licence... though I wouldn't be suprised if there are some out there.

"On December 13, 2004, EA Sports announced it had secured exclusive rights to the NFL and its players' union for the subsequent five years, precluding any other third party from selling a football game using NFL players, teams, stadiums or other licenses. This was recently extended until 2012."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madden_NFL

That implies that Madden DID in fact get the player association licence exclusively. If they didn't, Sega probably would have been releasing football games just like Madden 64/93 in the down-time. The best Sega could do now is get all of the teams to agree to be on their game, and they can make it like a college football game with no real player names.

I really don't think people are that desperate these days for a 2k game.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Against NFL
 

For the record, I had Madden Football 64.
That game was horrible.

At any rate this is an awkward ruling, and sadly I think it will change the entire face of every sport in North America within the next year and a half.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Against NFL
 

I had it too... It's funny that they released it with the out-dated game engine compared to Psx's version, just with better graphics... I loved 99 for N64 though