The Dude wrote:all depends on what blocks you'll be on

lethal wrote:

Bucky wrote:

lethal wrote: The argument the NFL made of it being a single entity whose franchises did not compete with each other except on the field just didn't sound right. Glad it lost 9-0, but I can't believe they won with that argument in the lower courts.

Interesting. I thought that is exactly how it's supposed to work. OK, speaking from more of an MLB perspective, since I follow that more closely, but I'm assuming that the NFL works in a similar fashion.

Especially from a merchandising standpoint- all money from all merchandise goes into a pool. Doesn't matter whose merchandise it is- it all gets pooled and divided equally. So even if 1 million Cowgirls hats are sold, and seven Texans hats leave the shelves, each franchise gets an equal share of the proceeds.

So I'm really interested- why doesn't that sound right to you???

Teams compete against each other for fans. Merchandise sales is one indicator of that. The Jets compete against the Giants to sell merchandise, win over fans, get more butts in seats and eyeballs watching on TV. Even if the actual merchandise sales are shared equally, the ancillary effects would cause teams to compete. If the Chargers have a cooler logo, maybe some kid in Atlanta buys a jersey and maybe they end up being a Chargers fan instead of a Falcons fan.

Here's what the opinion said about it.

Each of the teams is a substantial, independently owned, and independently managed business. . . . 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,”. . . teams are acting as “separate economic actors pursuing separate economic interests,” and each team therefore is a potential “independent cente[r] of decisionmaking” [Citations omitted].

Some analysis of it from the WSJ. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/05/24/ame ... ainst-nfl/

phatj wrote:

lethal wrote:

Bucky wrote:

lethal wrote: The argument the NFL made of it being a single entity whose franchises did not compete with each other except on the field just didn't sound right. Glad it lost 9-0, but I can't believe they won with that argument in the lower courts.

Interesting. I thought that is exactly how it's supposed to work. OK, speaking from more of an MLB perspective, since I follow that more closely, but I'm assuming that the NFL works in a similar fashion.

Especially from a merchandising standpoint- all money from all merchandise goes into a pool. Doesn't matter whose merchandise it is- it all gets pooled and divided equally. So even if 1 million Cowgirls hats are sold, and seven Texans hats leave the shelves, each franchise gets an equal share of the proceeds.

So I'm really interested- why doesn't that sound right to you???

Teams compete against each other for fans. Merchandise sales is one indicator of that. The Jets compete against the Giants to sell merchandise, win over fans, get more butts in seats and eyeballs watching on TV. Even if the actual merchandise sales are shared equally, the ancillary effects would cause teams to compete. If the Chargers have a cooler logo, maybe some kid in Atlanta buys a jersey and maybe they end up being a Chargers fan instead of a Falcons fan.

Here's what the opinion said about it.

Each of the teams is a substantial, independently owned, and independently managed business. . . . 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,”. . . teams are acting as “separate economic actors pursuing separate economic interests,” and each team therefore is a potential “independent cente[r] of decisionmaking” [Citations omitted].

Some analysis of it from the WSJ. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/05/24/ame ... ainst-nfl/

What's fascinating about this is that in many ways, the single entity argument seems perfectly valid. The teams themselves only have any value within the context of the league; they may compete against each other for fans, but they also depend on the existence of the teams they compete with.

SK790 wrote:really trying to put off cleaning my apt.

azrider wrote:

SK790 wrote:really trying to put off cleaning my apt.

you and calvin should split the bill on an illegal.

SK790 wrote:

azrider wrote:

SK790 wrote:really trying to put off cleaning my apt.

you and calvin should split the bill on an illegal.

think it would be costly to fly her/him back and forth between downingtown and seattle.

1 wrote:just listed most of the books i own on amazon. now we wait.

1 wrote:just listed most of the books i own on amazon. now we wait.