Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1
    Texas Viking's Avatar
    Texas Viking is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    204

    Justices rule against NFL over apparel licensing

    Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the National Football League over its exclusive contract with an apparel maker in one of the most important sports law cases in decades.

    In a 9-0 decision Monday, the justices said the league can be considered 32 separate teams, not a single business.


    http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/24/nfl.lawsuit/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

  2. #2
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re:Justices rule against NFL over apparel licensing

    Texas Viking wrote:
    Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the National Football League over its exclusive contract with an apparel maker in one of the most important sports law cases in decades.

    In a 9-0 decision Monday, the justices said the league can be considered 32 separate teams, not a single business.


    http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/24/nfl.lawsuit/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
    Dammit! I was going to post that, but actually spent 5 minutes trying to find the original thread on the American Needle lawsuit from last year. LOL!

    Now, I know most here are bored to tears by anything that actually has to do with the BUSINESS of football, this is kind-of important. A ruling in the NFL's favor would have opened them up to all sorts or protections against anti-trust actions. But they didn't get that. The Supremes see the NFL (9-0, as noted above) as 32 teams who compete directly against one another.

    Bit of a blow for the small company (American Needle) but it has large implications for future issues.

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  3. #3
    Texas Viking's Avatar
    Texas Viking is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    204

    Re:Justices rule against NFL over apparel licensing

    I was amazed I was the first to sneak it in lol. Ah well, I donít get to post much being thereís so many like you on PPO that usually get the good stuff on here first.

    This should be an interesting development, Iím thinking weíll soon see a huge increase in collectables and apparel now for individual teams being they can negotiate apart from the NFL. Maybe this is good news for the Vikings as well. If they can sign contracts with local merchants for Vikings stuff they can put that extra revenue toward our new arena.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,206

    Re:Justices rule against NFL over apparel licensing

    I wasn't aware of this at all, but it seems like it could have a large impact on quite a few things.

    For example, if the NFL can't have an exclusive agreement on equipment and apparel, what about video games or TV rights? In many ways these seem like they are separate issues, but I sure don't know the law on this type of thing.

    So I guess it could have a large impact on nothing too.

    ProFootballTalk has a bit on this (here) and suggests that it will have an impact on labor negotiations. Essentially, Florio suggests: 1) that both the NFL and union were waiting for this decision before commencing any serious negotiations; and 2) that the decision gives the players additional leverage in those negotiations.

    As a fan, I don't really care where the two sides end up, but anything that might help to avoid a lockout or strike is good news.
    When the age of the Vikings came to a close, they must have sensed it. Probably, they gathered together one evening, slapped each other on the back and said, "Hey, good job." - Jack Handey [Deep Thoughts]

  5. #5
    gregair13's Avatar
    gregair13 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    14,578

    Re: Justices rule against NFL over apparel licensing

    Kind of interesting especially with the pending collective bargaining agreement that needs to be redone
    We're bringing purple back.

  6. #6
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,777
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Justices rule against NFL over apparel licensing

    Even more interesting and relevent to us though, is the Williams' case.

    In the Williams' case, the NFL is trying to establish that they are one large employer, and are not restricted to MInnesota State law, when in fact, the Supreme court is saying the NFL is made up of 32 different employers.

    WIth the Williams' being employees of the Minnesota Vikings, and not the NFL, they would be subject to Minnesota state law.

    Hopefully this will help speed up this whole process, as I just want it to be done with.

  7. #7
    ejmat is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,849

    Re: Justices rule against NFL over apparel licensing

    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Even more interesting and relevent to us though, is the Williams' case.

    In the Williams' case, the NFL is trying to establish that they are one large employer, and are not restricted to MInnesota State law, when in fact, the Supreme court is saying the NFL is made up of 32 different employers.

    WIth the Williams' being employees of the Minnesota Vikings, and not the NFL, they would be subject to Minnesota state law.

    Hopefully this will help speed up this whole process, as I just want it to be done with.
    This is my thought exactly. I know the two rulings are totally different from one another. However, it would seem to me if there is a ruling by the courts stating each team is a separate entity then it would somewhat contradict itself if the court rules for the NFL in the WIlliams' case.

  8. #8
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re: Justices rule against NFL over apparel licensing

    ejmat wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Even more interesting and relevent to us though, is the Williams' case.

    In the Williams' case, the NFL is trying to establish that they are one large employer, and are not restricted to MInnesota State law, when in fact, the Supreme court is saying the NFL is made up of 32 different employers.

    WIth the Williams' being employees of the Minnesota Vikings, and not the NFL, they would be subject to Minnesota state law.

    Hopefully this will help speed up this whole process, as I just want it to be done with.
    This is my thought exactly. I know the two rulings are totally different from one another. However, it would seem to me if there is a ruling by the courts stating each team is a separate entity then it would somewhat contradict itself if the court rules for the NFL in the WIlliams' case.
    Selling hats is a tad different from the labor issue.

    And the fact remains - and will remain - that the Williams' representative, the NFLPA, negotiated a labor agreement with the NFL (the representative of the 32 separate entities) that clearly says the players are responsible for what they put into their bodies. I fail to see how this changes that.

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  9. #9
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,777
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Justices rule against NFL over apparel licensing

    Zeus wrote:
    ejmat wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Even more interesting and relevent to us though, is the Williams' case.

    In the Williams' case, the NFL is trying to establish that they are one large employer, and are not restricted to MInnesota State law, when in fact, the Supreme court is saying the NFL is made up of 32 different employers.

    WIth the Williams' being employees of the Minnesota Vikings, and not the NFL, they would be subject to Minnesota state law.

    Hopefully this will help speed up this whole process, as I just want it to be done with.
    This is my thought exactly. I know the two rulings are totally different from one another. However, it would seem to me if there is a ruling by the courts stating each team is a separate entity then it would somewhat contradict itself if the court rules for the NFL in the WIlliams' case.
    Selling hats is a tad different from the labor issue.

    And the fact remains - and will remain - that the Williams' representative, the NFLPA, negotiated a labor agreement with the NFL (the representative of the 32 separate entities) that clearly says the players are responsible for what they put into their bodies. I fail to see how this changes that.

    =Z=

    but the fact of waht is in their bodies is not the issue anymore. THe only reason the Williams' haven't been suspended yet is because of the Minnesota state law which was broken by the NFL. If they determine the NFL doesn't have to follow MInnesota State law, then the WIlliams' get suspended. However, this saying that the Williams' are in fact employees of the Vikings, not the NFL could mean that they would be restricted to state laws.

    Again, this hole will be closed with the next CBA, you can be assured of that, but there is the issue. If the supreme court goes back and says that the NFL is a single entity, and all states must follow its rules, eyebrows will be raised in both this, and the WIlliams' case.

  10. #10
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,278

    Re: Justices rule against NFL over apparel licensing

    Zeus wrote:
    ejmat wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Even more interesting and relevent to us though, is the Williams' case.

    In the Williams' case, the NFL is trying to establish that they are one large employer, and are not restricted to MInnesota State law, when in fact, the Supreme court is saying the NFL is made up of 32 different employers.

    WIth the Williams' being employees of the Minnesota Vikings, and not the NFL, they would be subject to Minnesota state law.

    Hopefully this will help speed up this whole process, as I just want it to be done with.
    This is my thought exactly. I know the two rulings are totally different from one another. However, it would seem to me if there is a ruling by the courts stating each team is a separate entity then it would somewhat contradict itself if the court rules for the NFL in the WIlliams' case.
    Selling hats is a tad different from the labor issue.

    And the fact remains - and will remain - that the Williams' representative, the NFLPA, negotiated a labor agreement with the NFL (the representative of the 32 separate entities) that clearly says the players are responsible for what they put into their bodies. I fail to see how this changes that.

    =Z=
    I think it might change the validity of said agreement. If they are MN employees any contract would have to meet MN labor laws. (for instance I can't write up an agreement to pay you $2 an hour to be my personal chef, because state law requires I pay you a minimum of 5.25 an hour).
    Even if you agreed to the lower rate the courts could mandate I pay you back wages and such.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Tom Brady to promote UGG apparel...
    By Culpepper_4717 in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-01-2010, 12:34 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-28-2008, 05:00 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-05-2007, 08:00 PM
  4. NFL Apparel commercial with Vikes fans vs. Bears fan...
    By cajunvike in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-11-2006, 09:31 PM
  5. Justices side with Anna Nicole Smith
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-02-2006, 05:22 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •