Could this help Upper Deck vs. MLB?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5214509

Basically, a Supreme Court judge ruled that the NFL is comprised of 32 teams and is not one big entity. This was in favor of a hat maker, American Needle, who filed an anti-trust case because they lost their contract with the NFL to Reebok. I would imagine that this could apply to the MLB exclusive with Topps in regards to making cards. Thoughts?

Matt

ballcardzdotcom said:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5214509

Basically, a Supreme Court judge ruled that the NFL is comprised of 32 teams and is not one big entity. This was in favor of a hat maker, American Needle, who filed an anti-trust case because they lost their contract with the NFL to Reebok. I would imagine that this could apply to the MLB exclusive with Topps in regards to making cards. Thoughts?

Matt

Click to expand...

UD settled. Done.

MLB does not have to follow the anti-trust rules. Congress made it so that MLB is a legal monopoly itself. So if they choose to only have one card manufacturer, so be it. Unfortuntely, they picked the worst company to continue with.

MLB Baseball's response:

[youtube:grg73skx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-jXe0x4YdM[/youtube:grg73skx]

Crash Davis said:

ballcardzdotcom said:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5214509

Basically, a Supreme Court judge ruled that the NFL is comprised of 32 teams and is not one big entity. This was in favor of a hat maker, American Needle, who filed an anti-trust case because they lost their contract with the NFL to Reebok. I would imagine that this could apply to the MLB exclusive with Topps in regards to making cards. Thoughts?

Matt

Click to expand...

UD settled. Done.

Click to expand...

You call it settled, I call it wasted a ton of money and cut their own nuts off.

Jeff N. said:

[quote="Crash Davis":hfbyjwqo]

ballcardzdotcom said:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5214509

Basically, a Supreme Court judge ruled that the NFL is comprised of 32 teams and is not one big entity. This was in favor of a hat maker, American Needle, who filed an anti-trust case because they lost their contract with the NFL to Reebok. I would imagine that this could apply to the MLB exclusive with Topps in regards to making cards. Thoughts?

Matt

Click to expand...

UD settled. Done.

Click to expand...

You call it settled, I call it wasted a ton of money and cut their own nuts off.[/quote:hfbyjwqo]

From what I have been told, the settlement was a strategic thing, not anything else. Its something that if you think about the effects a UD win would have, it makes sense.

Gellman said:

Jeff N. said:

[quote="Crash Davis":1t9yrg5c]

ballcardzdotcom said:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5214509

Basically, a Supreme Court judge ruled that the NFL is comprised of 32 teams and is not one big entity. This was in favor of a hat maker, American Needle, who filed an anti-trust case because they lost their contract with the NFL to Reebok. I would imagine that this could apply to the MLB exclusive with Topps in regards to making cards. Thoughts?

Matt

Click to expand...

UD settled. Done.

Click to expand...

You call it settled, I call it wasted a ton of money and cut their own nuts off.

Click to expand...

From what I have been told, the settlement was a strategic thing, not anything else. Its something that if you think about the effects a UD win would have, it makes sense.[/quote:1t9yrg5c]
Yeah and then they went and lost exclusives to football and hockey making that point almost moot.

bmc398 said:

Gellman said:

Jeff N. said:

[quote="Crash Davis":3w3gzxmx]

ballcardzdotcom said:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5214509

Basically, a Supreme Court judge ruled that the NFL is comprised of 32 teams and is not one big entity. This was in favor of a hat maker, American Needle, who filed an anti-trust case because they lost their contract with the NFL to Reebok. I would imagine that this could apply to the MLB exclusive with Topps in regards to making cards. Thoughts?

Matt

Click to expand...

UD settled. Done.

Click to expand...

You call it settled, I call it wasted a ton of money and cut their own nuts off.

Click to expand...

From what I have been told, the settlement was a strategic thing, not anything else. Its something that if you think about the effects a UD win would have, it makes sense.

Click to expand...

Yeah and then they went and lost exclusives to football and hockey making that point almost moot.

That, and the new ownership of Panini has enough ethics to not go that route with football and press pass doesn't have the lawyers.[/quote:3w3gzxmx]

bmc398 said:

Gellman said:

Jeff N. said:

[quote="Crash Davis":10w6x7hu]

ballcardzdotcom said:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5214509

Basically, a Supreme Court judge ruled that the NFL is comprised of 32 teams and is not one big entity. This was in favor of a hat maker, American Needle, who filed an anti-trust case because they lost their contract with the NFL to Reebok. I would imagine that this could apply to the MLB exclusive with Topps in regards to making cards. Thoughts?

Matt

Click to expand...

UD settled. Done.

Click to expand...

You call it settled, I call it wasted a ton of money and cut their own nuts off.

Click to expand...

From what I have been told, the settlement was a strategic thing, not anything else. Its something that if you think about the effects a UD win would have, it makes sense.

Click to expand...

Yeah and then they went and lost exclusives to football and hockey making that point almost moot.[/quote:10w6x7hu]

True, but at the time, that wasnt part of the consideration.

muskiesfan said:

MLB does not have to follow the anti-trust rules. Congress made it so that MLB is a legal monopoly itself. So if they choose to only have one card manufacturer, so be it. Unfortuntely, they picked the worst company to continue with.

Click to expand...

I was unaware of the Congressional designation bestowed upon MLB. Plain and simple, I like choice, and only being able to choose from new Topps products sucks.

Gellman said:

bmc398 said:

Gellman said:

Jeff N. said:

[quote="Crash Davis":10cidqg6]

ballcardzdotcom said:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5214509

Basically, a Supreme Court judge ruled that the NFL is comprised of 32 teams and is not one big entity. This was in favor of a hat maker, American Needle, who filed an anti-trust case because they lost their contract with the NFL to Reebok. I would imagine that this could apply to the MLB exclusive with Topps in regards to making cards. Thoughts?

Matt

Click to expand...

UD settled. Done.

Click to expand...

You call it settled, I call it wasted a ton of money and cut their own nuts off.

Click to expand...

From what I have been told, the settlement was a strategic thing, not anything else. Its something that if you think about the effects a UD win would have, it makes sense.

Click to expand...

Yeah and then they went and lost exclusives to football and hockey making that point almost moot.

Click to expand...

True, but at the time, that wasnt part of the consideration.[/quote:10cidqg6]
Then what was? I thought it had everything to do with them not having enough money to pay if they lost and lost bad and certainly didn't have enough money to pay legal fees out the butt for the duration of this to play out. That, coupled with the added expenses of making more products they couldn't afford to make was what made them stop. Them being able to keep selling all of their late 09/2010 products wasn't a big deal for them since they had long since sold it off, or at least a good deal of it before that settlement.

A UD win opens up the market to anybody in any sport. Right now, they would really stand to benefit as they have done anything but corner the market in anything they do right now except hockey...and thats flying out the window real quick.

IF UD had to negotiate with each team, then the price would go up even further and they would probably be unable to reach a deal with most of them.

cgilmo said:

IF UD had to negotiate with each team, then the price would go up even further and they would probably be unable to reach a deal with most of them.

Click to expand...

I wasn't really thinking of the argument to force UD to negotiate with each team, but moreover Topps inability to have an exclusive agreement with the MLBPA being that this ruling would suggest that the NFL has no such right. Wishful thinking I suppose. Probably why I am not, and have never had any aspirations to be, a lawyer.

Matt

cgilmo said:

IF UD had to negotiate with each team, then the price would go up even further and they would probably be unable to reach a deal with most of them.

Click to expand...

That's a good point and probably true. Probably wouldn't be fun trying to negotiate that with the Yankees and Sox.

Though they can probably make a sweet Pirates/Royals set on the cheap.