IBJNews

NFL must face antitrust suits, U.S. high court rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The U.S. Supreme Court opened the way for greater antitrust scrutiny of professional sports leagues, reviving a suit over the National Football League’s agreement with Adidas AG’s Reebok to sell clothing emblazoned with team insignias.

The justices, unanimously overturning a lower court ruling, said the NFL and its franchises aren’t automatically entitled to act as a group in licensing their trademark rights. The majority said judges instead should consider on a case-by-case basis how the league’s business practices affect competition.

“The teams compete in the market for intellectual property,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court. “To a firm making hats, the Saints and the Colts are two potentially competing suppliers of valuable trademarks.”

The ruling is a blow to pro sports leagues, which had sought to win a broad shield from antitrust claims over video-game licenses, television rights, franchise relocation and even player salaries. Only Major League Baseball is exempt from antitrust laws now. The decision may reduce the NFL’s leverage as it tries to negotiate a new contract with its players’ union and avoid a work stoppage after next season.

The case centers on a suit by American Needle Inc., which lost its right to sell team caps in 2000 when the league reached its accord with Reebok, a Massachusetts-based company later acquired by Adidas. American Needle sued the NFL, its teams, their licensing arm and Reebok.

Reebok employs 950 people at a manufacturing plant on the east side of Indianapolis. The facility manufactures and distributes apparel for the National Football League, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, Major League Baseball and the NCAA.

Retail sales of NFL-licensed merchandise in the U.S. and Canada topped $3.2 billion in 2007, according to the Licensing Letter’s Sports Licensing Report, published by EPM Communications Inc. in New York. Sales of pro football, baseball, basketball, hockey and soccer products combined were more than $9 billion.

The NFL asked the Supreme Court to declare that franchises operate as a single entity when licensing trademark rights to apparel makers and other vendors. That would have shielded the league and its teams from suits under the federal antitrust law provision that bars conspiracies to restrain trade. The league said trademark licensing helps promote that on-field product.

American Needle, based outside Chicago, said the league structure shouldn’t exempt teams from the usual rule that independently owned businesses face antitrust scrutiny when they act in concert. The company says the Reebok agreement led to price increases.

The Obama administration took a middle ground, saying the NFL is a single entity for only some of its activities.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago threw out the suit, saying collective licensing would help teams “compete against other entertainment providers.” The NFL took the unusual step of joining American Needle in requesting Supreme Court review.

The NFL had backing from the National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, the National Collegiate Athletic Association and other leagues. Major League Baseball isn’t involved.

Electronic Arts Inc. also supported the NFL. The video-game publisher has an exclusive license to produce video games using NFL players, teams and logos.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. In my opinion the estridge companies are crooks. They filed bankruptcy on their 'track housing' side of the business two weeks before they closed on one of my clients' homes. When my client first interviewed Estridge as a builder 6 months before, they specifically ASKED about the solvency of their business, knowing that some builders were struggling. Estridge truly misrepresented their financial situation at that time. I suppose I am more unhappy with the whole system than I am with the builder because what the heck==you can file bankruptcy on 'track homes' but still keep building and make money off of 'custom built' homes??? How ridiculous! They are all homes. How can a company be allowed to bilk thousands of dollars from their subcontractors but still be allowed to build houses?? they should have been made to pay back all their unpaid contractors before being allowed to profit from building any more houses! This alone makes them and the system crooks in my eyes. I would never build an estridge home and I would not recommend for my clients either. If they were truly 'bankrupt' how could they afford to keep building homes anyway??? The whole system needs fixed.

  2. I live a couple blocks east of the Angie's campus and my house is assessed for ~$160,000. If I could get that amount, let alone $384,000 (a 140% bonus), I'd sell in a minute. Either Angie's stockholders just got fleeced, or Angie's is getting about a 58% discount on their property taxes, if these properties are actually worth what they paid Mr. Oesterle for them. Which do you think is the case?

  3. Perhaps the IMA board is really to blame! They agreed to hire Charles. They can't seemingly find donors among themselves, or bring in new blood that will support the museums operating budget with an expanded museum and money to provide curators with something to do (ie buy art). The headlines of disarray at the museum and mass firings are hurting the reputation of the museum for some time to come. If people on the board had misgivings, perhaps they shpuld have more forcefully opposed efforts that they have seemingly been unable to fund, like expansion and the costs it has created!

  4. See, I told u Indyman and Dipsicle....this 8 days is overkill. It's barely worth a weekend....great job Tony George! Your dream has been fulfilled....he fans want the I r l back. Thats how good it was.....and that sucked.

  5. I have been in training for a short time now but right off I can see that safety and quality are the number one issues, my experience as of late has been a positive one, the employees along with Jeff the plant manager and the operation supervisor as well as the engineers are a highly motivated group of people, what an asset for the area to have and for company's in need of a quality metal products.

ADVERTISEMENT