Is the agreement that MLBP has with Topps/Bowman a monopoly?

[i43770]

With the lawsuit that MLBP just brought against Upper Deck, I am curious to what you think. I would love to hear why or why not you feel the way you do.

 

[jeff550]

well i asked my dad about this because i thought it was, but he said that its not a monopoly yet. It dosent stop other people from Producing cards, it just limits it. Now if all the other componies go out of buisness then i think it could be

 

[Jastermereel]

I can't remember exactly from my Business Law class, but either the NFL or MLB are a legal monopoly (can't remember which). If it's MLB that may help them?

 

[andyduke86]

Not at all. MLB can contract for the use of its trademarks with anyone it wants to.

 

[i43770]

I voted no.

I look at it the same as the agreement between soft drink companies and fast food restaurants. Topps is paying MLBP money to produce the only licensed cards for the company. The same way Coke pays McDonald's to be the only soft drink provider in their restaurants (except the one at Chase Field)

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Enjoy

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?*** ... NFL,_et_al

 

[bballcardkid]

I can't remember exactly from my Business Law class, but either the NFL or MLB are a legal monopoly (can't remember which). If it's MLB that may help them?

NFL if I'm not mistaken. I think they are one of 2 firms with an antitrust exemption. I don't know who the other is.

 

[hive17]

The NFL, MLB and other pro-sports team/leagues are private entitites for the most part. It's their game to run into the ground if they want to. I don't get where the courts would have the right to dictate what a league does with it's own logos. If someone wanted to come to me and put me on a t-shirt and I said no, shouldn't I have the right to dictate who uses my image and how? How is that different than Pro Leagues?

Just because someone WANTS to be part of the NFL/MLB money-making machine, doesn't mean they get to.

 

[Sly]

Considering there are:

Upper Deck
Topps
Panini
Razor

And probably others still producing SPORTS CARDS, it's not a monopoly. A monopoly would not fall within baseball or football or hockey. It would be within the SPORTS CARDS INDUSTRY...and there is not just one company producing.

And as others have said, it's fully on MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL to decide who produces cards. It's no different than a certain team (or league) have a single shoe sponsor or jersey maker...

In no way, shape or form is this a monopoly...

 

[pigskincardboard]

I think there's something in the courts right now about this very subject.

The whole point is that NFL Franchises aren't private entities, but rather franchises. If they were private entities, then it would be a monopoly. If they were private entities, then it'd be collusion to award a license solely to topps.

Same with McDonalds, if they were private business, Store Owner A would be allowed to sell Pepsi if they played better than coke.

 

[Hallsgator]

The NFL, MLB and other pro-sports team/leagues are private entitites for the most part. It's their game to run into the ground if they want to. I don't get where the courts would have the right to dictate what a league does with it's own logos. If someone wanted to come to me and put me on a t-shirt and I said no, shouldn't I have the right to dictate who uses my image and how? How is that different than Pro Leagues?

Just because someone WANTS to be part of the NFL/MLB money-making machine, doesn't mean they get to.

MLS is the only private entity league.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

As I understand, MLB is the only entity with an anti-trust exemption from congress. There have been several start-up leagues in direct competition with the NFL. Thay have all failed. There will never be a professional league to compete with MLB.

And is Upper Deck making the only tiger Woods cards a monopoly? My answer to both questions is no.