[PoideAdelereX]

WASHINGTON (AP)—In the legal equivalent of running up the score, the National Football League is going to the Supreme Court in search of a bigger victory in an antitrust tussle over team merchandise than it already won from a lower court.

The Supreme Court could decide as early as Monday whether it will hear the case, which involves American Needle Inc.’s challenge to the league’s exclusive contract for selling headwear such as caps and hats with team logos on them. American Needle of Buffalo Grove, Ill., is also urging high court review. Football team owners hope the high court will issue a broader decision that would insulate the NFL against what they contend are costly, frivolous antitrust lawsuits.

At the heart of the matter is whether the NFL’s teams constitute 32 distinct businesses or a single entity that can act collectively without violating antitrust law.

The case is important to other professional sports besides football. The National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League both filed friend-of-the-court briefs siding with the NFL.

Notably absent is Major League Baseball, which has an antitrust exemption thanks to a 1922 Supreme Court ruling.

“Member clubs of the NFL have no independent value, no purpose, indeed no meaningful reason for existence but for their participation in the league itself,” the NFL argues. It cited a ruling in an antitrust challenge involving the NBA, in which an appeals court wrote, “A league with one team would be like one hand clapping.”

The NFL argued that professional sports leagues should be deemed single entities for purposes of antitrust law, at least concerning core venture functions.

American Needle had been one of many companies that manufactured NFL headwear. In 2001, the league granted an exclusive contract to Reebok. American Needle sued the league and Reebok in 2004, claiming the deal violated antitrust law.

A federal district court disagreed, saying that the teams acted as a single entity in licensing their intellectual property. Last year, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed that ruling.

“Asserting that a single football team could produce a football game is less of a legal argument,” the court said, than “a Zen riddle: Who wins when a football team plays itself?”

The appeals court said that the league isn’t always a single entity, but that nothing in antitrust law prohibits the teams from cooperating so the league can compete against other forms of entertainment.

If the Supreme Court declines to take the case, the appeals court ruling would be left in place.

American Needle argued in its legal filing that the appeals court decision contradicted a 1957 Supreme Court ruling that refused to extend baseball’s antitrust exemption to professional football.

The solicitor general’s office, after being asked by the Supreme Court to weigh in on the current case, urged the court not to take it. The government said the lower court ruling does not conflict with any decisions by the Supreme Court or other appeals courts—contrary to arguments made by American Needle and the NFL.

Gary Roberts, dean of the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis and an expert on sports law, said that the NFL senses it has a pretty favorable Supreme Court makeup.

“They would like to have the Supreme Court resolve this single entity issue now,” said Roberts, a former lawyer for the NFL. “Even though they risk losing this case, the potential gain for all sports leagues from having the Supreme Court affirm the decision would be huge.”


http://sports.yahoo.comnflnews;_ylt=...v=ap&type=lgns

[Gosxjqum]

Bunch of B.S. the NFL and Reebok trying to monopolize the market. Shame on them!!!

[Voitramma]

Remember how i told ya'all this case be HUGE????

It is.


WASHINGTON – A hat can be a small thing.
Then there's the Supreme Court battle over who gets to make official NFL headgear. It could end up having a very large effect not only on all professional sports, but also the landscape of business in the United States.

"Make no mistake about it, this case is about more than just hats," said DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the National Football League Players Association.

The high court will hear arguments Wednesday from a former NFL apparel maker seeking to overturn rulings that the National Football League is one business, not 32 separate teams working together, and therefore immune to an antitrust complaint.

If the court rules the NFL is a single business entity, then teams would be able to negotiate as a unit instead of separately as they do now. Owners would be free from having to compete with each other on things like player salaries and ticket prices.

A decision granting the NFL a blanket antitrust exemption could lead to player strikes not only in football, but also pro basketball, hockey and other sports, player advocates said. It also could give leagues leeway to reduce player salaries by ending free agency, raise ticket prices and even reshape nonsport business practices.

"NFL players have advanced the game — by forcing free agency, for example — because of the ability to challenge the NFL on antitrust violations," Smith said. "If the Supreme Court grants the NFL immunity from those laws, 50 years of precedent will be ignored, and the game will suffer as a result."

The fallout if the ruling says a league's privately owned clubs can't be considered one business? Lawyers in favor of a one-business ruling say that could lead to lawsuits against pro sport leagues, multinational businesses and even credit card companies, potentially driving up the cost of doing business and of everyday products.

A victory by American Needle Inc. of Buffalo Grove, Ill., "would convert every league of separately owned clubs into a walking antitrust conspiracy," NFL lawyer Gregg H. Levy said in court briefs.

American Needle had been one of many companies that made NFL headgear until the league awarded an exclusive contract to Reebok International Ltd. in 2001.

American Needle sued the league and Reebok in 2004, claiming the deal violated antitrust law. Lower courts threw out the suit, holding that nothing in antitrust law prohibits NFL teams from cooperating on apparel licensing so the league can compete against other forms of entertainment.

But in what sports fans would call "running up the score," the NFL is asking the Supreme Court to review the case in hopes of getting a blanket antitrust exemption that could eliminate most, if not all, the antitrust suits against the league.

"It was an odd request — similar to my asking an official to review an 80-yard pass of mine that the official had already ruled a touchdown," New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees wrote in The Washington Post. Brees serves on the executive committee of the NFL Players Association.

Right now, only Major League Baseball has an antitrust exemption, dating from a 1922 Supreme Court decision. The National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, the NCAA, NASCAR, professional tennis and Major League Soccer are supporting the NFL in hopes the court will expand that antitrust exemption to other sports.

The NFL and other sports leagues want the high court to cement the league's victory in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago because other appeals courts have ruled differently.

The major credit card companies, Visa and MasterCard, also want the NFL to win, because if the NFL continues to be considered 32 separate businesses and vulnerable to antitrust lawsuits, then the federation of banks that makes up the credit card network would be in the same position.

An NFL victory would come at the cost of labor peace in pro sports, possibly leading to strikes and lost seasons for professional hockey, basketball and football, player unions say. Even the baseball players endorsed that view because, although baseball has an antitrust exemption, they fear competition among teams over player pay could be eliminated.

The NFL's players union and other pro athlete associations oppose the court's giving the league antitrust protection, noting that labor agreements in the NFL, NBA, NHL and pro baseball all expire in or around 2011. Players unions are against giving antitrust exemptions to sports leagues, saying players' salaries would be more difficult to negotiate.

If the NFL prevails, "decades of antitrust precedents that have protected competition for player services would be reversed, the benefits that both players and consumers have gained from competitive markets would be jeopardized and labor disputes and work stoppages would likely ensue," lawyers from the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB players' associations said.

"If the NFL wins this case, they can set ticket prices and stop nearby teams from competing for fans by offering discounted tickets. With the economy the way it is, I don't see how that's good for fans," said Pro Bowl Minnesota Vikings guard Steve Hutchinson. Hutchinson is also a player representative for the NFL's players association.

The case is American Needle v. NFL, 08-661.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100111/...NvZmZuZmxhcA--

[Prarnenoexpog]

Remember how i told ya'all this case be HUGE????

It is.

Honestly, no.

(though I don't disagree)

I also couldn't find a prior discussion here... perhaps on the other board? I can't get on there from work.