Supreme Court: NFL is 32 teams, not single business

Derwin0

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Original poster
Lifetime Supporter
Aug 16, 2004
43,133
21,701
Woolsey Woods, GA
Last edited:
Reebox can soon forget about making Cowboys apparal.

Jerry Jones has been wanting to switch to Nike on his own for a long time. He considers the current situation with NFL Properties and Reebox to be unfair as revenues are shared equally, even though a large portion of the clothing is Cowboys.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1007120/index.htm
As of now, the profit of NFL Properties, $90 million in 1995, is carved equally into 30 slices, chump change for a league that last year was a $2 billion business. On a $20 T-shirt NFLP reaps about 90 cents. It is Jones's idea that in this one area at least, capitalism ought to rule, that individual entrepreneurs can do far better than a bulky cartel—and one that has been rocked by scandal. Last year an NFLP executive was fired and another resigned when it was discovered that they had entered into under-the-table deals with a trading-card supplier. Cowboy merchandise, propelled by Dallas's success over the last five years, now represents nearly a quarter of NFLP sales; in 1990 that figure was 2%. Maybe, says Jones, his team deserves more than one 30th of the pie.
 
Don't like the rabbit hole this could send things down, I don't want to play one football game with 15 teams and another with only 2, and none of them with all 32. I don't want Sunday Ticket broken up and the teams broadcast rights all over the map like NCAA, wishing I could watch Chiefs @ Cowboys but my provider doesn't carry the Jerry Jones Network yet.

While there's a long way to go before any of that kind of stuff happens, it's a step in that direction. This gives the players a lot of power in the current labor dispute as well, which I presume PFT outlines in their video clip today that I can't listen to until I get home.
 
...wishing I could watch Chiefs @ Cowboys but my provider doesn't carry the Jerry Jones Network yet.

That was the exact thought that I had. I can just see the logo in the bottom, right corner of the screen with the letters YES replaced with JJ. I bet you will be able to PPV an alternate feed which has a window with his cage dancers at all times.
 
BTW, this rule has nothing to do with TV. Congress gave the NFL an anti-trust exemption relative to TV long ago.

And, it just remands (sends back) the case to the trial court. All the SC did was say that the judge below was wrong to dismiss it without a trial.

And Mr. Jones would be wise to understand what the case was about. Prior to 1990, the NFL, as a group, granted non-exclusive liscenses to various overlapping manufacturers and it switched to, as a group, granting an exclusive liscense to one company. It had nothing to do with the right of a team to opt out of the league and make its own deal. Nor with the power of the league to order revenue shared if it did.
 
If this were to go to trial and the Individual teams win, then the rich get richer and poor get poorer. Although I can understand if a team owner that is one of the more popular would want more of the money, but what happens when the league is left with just a handful of teams after all the other fold due to economics? Just saying it could happen, probably won't, but you never know.
 
Top