Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Case 16.2
AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC., V. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Supreme Court of the United States
560 U.S. 183; 130 S. Ct. 2201; 176 L. Ed. 2d 947; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4166 [May 24, 2010]
FACTS:
The National Football League (NFL) consists of 32 independently owned teams.
In 1963, the existing NFL teams formed the National Football League Properties (NFLP) to develop,
license, and market the intellectual property of each team and the league.
Prior to 2000, the NFLP granted nonexclusive licenses to several vendors, including American
Needle, Inc. American Needle manufactured and sold apparel with the various teams’ logos.
Beginning in 2000, NFLP entered into a 10-year exclusive arrangement with Reebok International,
Ltd. Allowing Reebok to be the only licensee to manufacturer and sell headwear for the NFL teams.
Due to this exclusive agreement with Reebok, the nonexclusive license previously awarded to
American Needle was not renewed.
American Needle filed a lawsuit alleging the NFL, its 32 teams, the NFLP, and Reebok violated
sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
PROCEDURE: The District Court granted summary judgment for respondents on the Section 1 claim,
and the United States Court of Appeals affirmed.
ISSUE(S): (1) Are the NFL and its 32 teams a “single entity” or individual competitive entities for
purposes of the antitrust laws?
(2) Did the NFL and its 32 teams operate in a concerted manner regarding the licensing of
intellectual property in violation of the Sherman Act?
RULE: In determining if the alleged conspirators are a single entity, “The key is whether the alleged
‘contract, combination…., or conspiracy’ is concerted action—that is, whether it joins together
separate decisionmakers. The relevant inquiry, therefore, is whether there is a ‘contract,
combination…., or conspiracy’ amongst ‘separate economic actors pursuing separate economic
interests,’ such that the agreement ‘deprives the marketplace of independent centers of
decisionmaking,’ and therefore of ‘diversity of entrepreneurial interest,’ and thus of actual or potential
competition.”
REASONING:
1. The teams remain separately controlled, potential competitors with economic interests that are
distinct from NFLP’s financial well-being.
3. When each NFL team licenses its intellectual property, it is not pursuing the “common interests of
the whole” league but is instead pursuing interests of each “corporation itself;” teams are acting as
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The decision in this case was unanimous.
The Court had long held that concerted action under Section 1 does not turn simply on whether the
parties involved are legally distinct entities. Instead, the Court has eschewed such formalistic
