Supreme Court Says Antitrust Law Applies To The NFL; No Exclusive Licensing Allowed
from the good-move dept
Earlier this year, we mentioned the Supreme Court was reviewing a lawsuit over whether or not the NFL had the right to have an exclusive license for its apparel. A company, American Needle, who had supplied apparel to various NFL teams, sued the NFL after it had entered into a long-term exclusive contract with Reebok to handle all team apparel. American Needle claimed that this was a clear anti-trust violation, as all of the teams had colluded to exclude everyone else from the market. The NFL argued, instead, that the entire league should be viewed as a single company. Today, the Supreme Court ruled against the NFL, saying that each team should be viewed as a separate company. The case then gets sent back down to be reconsidered:Directly relevant to this case, the teams compete in the market for intellectual property. To a firm making hats, the Saints and the Colts are two potentially competing suppliers of valuable trademarks. When each NFL team licenses its intellectual property, it is not pursuing the "common interests of the whole" league but is instead pursuing interests of each "corporation itself," Copperweld, 467 U. S., at 770; teams are acting as "separate economic actors pursuing separate economic interests," and each team therefore is a potential "independent cente[r] of decisionmaking," id., at 769. Decisions by NFL teams to license their separately owned trademarks collectively and to only one vendor are decisions that "depriv[e] the marketplace of independent centers of decisionmaking," ibid., and therefore of actual or potential competition.This makes a lot of sense. Otherwise, you could argue that any particular industry could set up an organization of which all the companies in that industry are a "member" and allow that single organization to negotiate exclusive deals, with the argument that it's "for the common interests of the whole." But, that's obviously collusion, with the intent to harm consumers. Thankfully, the Supreme Court saw through the flimsy claim that such a structure makes companies immune to antitrust law.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, supreme court, trademark
Companies: american needle, nfl, reebok
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Supreme Court Decision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hold up...
Also, the NFL does have some anti-trust exemption, but they don't have the blanket exemption that baseball has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can anyone provide an example of an exemption that makes sense other than public utilities?
If there is an exemption from anti trust regulations, then doesn't it follow that the recipient should be regulated as a monopoly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baseball no different
The Court has said they're not going to change the not commerce ruling. It's up to Congress. It's long past time for them to fix this quirk in the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm...
You mean like MPEG-LA?
Seriously the NHL had better watch out as they have signed a similar deal with Reebok.
Also, DirecTV may quickly be losing their "exclusivity" on NFL Sunday Ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
acting as a unity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuk em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://sfgate.bdc.bloomberg.wallst.com/SFChronicle/Story/Print?docId=1376-L2XIDO1A74E9-1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MLB Properties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MLB Properties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]