CBS Sports:
http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/11976030

The San Francisco Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/20/ED671B5TG3.DTL

The LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-nfl-court4-2010jan04,0,1714398.story

And Mr. Disney World himself, Drew Brees, wrote an Op-Ed which appeared in The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/07/AR2010010702947.html

While Goodell and the NFL owners might brush this off as a narrow focused and ultimately inconsequential Supreme Court case to the sports fan (watch this video at the 5 minute mark http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-super-bowl/09000d5d8163a83b/Roger-Goodell-press-conference-part-1), there really is grave danger to not only you who are concerned about the costs of concessions (We agree…God forbid beer prices rise faster than inflation!) and merchandise costs but to all those low income taxpayers helping to pay for NFL stadiums already who won’t see the inside of the next ’sponsor to be named later’ coliseum. The argument is not that the Seahawks and Jaguars are marketing their tickets to the same fans. It is the fact that you admitted concerning fixing ticket prices. While you mention that it is done all the time off the books today, it is not legal. This court case could change that, and that is reason alone to speak out against an expansive ruling in the Supreme Court. The NFL, as a single entity, could collude, or work together, to pay players less, to trade players, etc. at will. Also, the Browns can afford to pay or at least to fight Cleveland in court over breaking their lease-agreement. The benefit of having the NFL back up a particular franchise would only come into play if the city were sued for a sum much greater than the actual value of the club.

The NFL legal team has been looking for any way possible to get what Major League Baseball has: tax-exempt status. While you are right that it would rid them of the hassle of these battles in court, there is much more to it.

Treating an entire league as one company rather than competing companies trying to get you to like their team is a real phenomenon. Would you also argue that the Cowboys’ tag of ‘America’s Team’ or the Yankees dominance of the merchandising market in baseball are seen as non-threatening to opposing franchises? ‘Good for them’, the Redskins and Red Sox organizations are genuinely happy for them to succeed in the world of business, let alone the field of play. I think not.

Despite all of this, your comment did hit the nail on the head when you wrote that it is all about the money. There’s no question about that.

That’s why we’re fighting this. The NFL is trying to get stronger, and who do you think will lose purchasing power inside the stadium, when buying the ‘official’ jersey, or paying seat licenses before the season ticket bill lands in the mailbox? Sports fans.

The NFL’s single entity argument would not allow it to violate federal labor laws. The NLRA would apply just as it does now. The players’ union is only interested in this case because (1) they want a bigger share of the apparel proceeds to go to players, and (2) they’re rightfully concerned that increased apparel proceeds will further increase the league’s ability to weather (and therefore to implement) a lockout in 2011. That’s it.

The league is still obligated to bargain in good faith, still cannot discriminate on the basis of union membership, etc., etc. Not surprisingly, it’s just about the money from EVERY angle (labor and management). The assertion that the union “would have no recourse” is truly puzzling. The MISL was set up as a single entity and was regularly targeted in unfair labor practice proceedings before the NLRB.

Nor would the NFL’s single entity argument have any impact on municipal leases, etc. If anything, this would be a positive for cities with teams. Let’s say the Browns broke their lease with the City of Cleveland (again). The Browns’ franchise would be acting as the agent of the ENTIRE league. This means the city can go after the assets of the entire league, not just the particular franchise in question. This being the case, my guess is that the single entity argument, if successful, will discourage team relocation if it has any impact at all.

Regarding ticket prices, it’s true that teams would be able to engage in price-fixing if the league is successful. But if you think that isn’t happening now, I have some great investment opportunities I’d like to discuss with you. In any event, price-fixing in the NFL context is meaningless, which may be one of the arguments the league is asserting. NFL teams don’t compete against each other in selling tickets. Has anyone ever looked at the ticket prices of various NFL franchises and decided which game(s) to see based on a reasoned comparison of the “value” they expect at different stadiums vs. the cost of purchasing the ticket? Of course not. We go because we’re fans, i.e. fanatics. We don’t use logic or reason, we just root for the team we love. And, we probably don’t decide which team we love in the league based on their ticket prices. In any event, not many of us have a realistic option of seeing more than one NFL team on a regular basis.

If there is competition in regard to NFL ticket prices, it’s competition with other events in the same city (and that’s probably stretching it). The NFL’s single entity position would have nothing to do with setting prices for non-NFL events and whatever competition exists now in that regard wouldn’t change. Yes, the league might be able to “subsidize” some teams and allow them to set their ticket prices artificially low, but they do that already through revenue sharing. Again, nothing to see here.

I’m certainly not an economist (INSERT GRATUITOUS “nor do I play one on TV”), but my guess is that this will have its biggest impact in relation to apparel and concession prices, and I’m fairly certain that’s what the league intends. Being a single entity, the league can offer exclusive apparel rights, for example, which they can charge more for than simple, non-exclusive licensing rights. Regarding concessions, they might enter into a nationwide agreement with Aramark to sell concessions, for which Aramark would be willing to pay considerably more (obviously) than it would for concession rights at 3 or 4 stadiums. The increased costs for the vendor will eventually come out of our wallets.

That said, I’m not sure how big a deal this is. In terms of apparel, I can’t really get too excited over the fact that someone who just has to have that “officially licensed” Drew Brees jersey is going to have to pay $15 more for it. It’s not an essential. Personally, I’m a bit more irritated about the concessions. But whether I pay $8 or $11.50 for a beer, my rear end will feel pretty equally violated.

Peter Quinn