EA Still Owns the NFL License Exclusively

[kjcheezhead]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

Video games are a different beast, yes. That said, how is the NFL hurting themselves? They are getting their money from EA, and their brand is being represented by a product which sells very well and the critical consensus of said product is that it is at least "good", sometimes "great".

Because you can only get top dollar if multiple companies want your license. The NFL has given EA every advantage so that Sony, Microsoft, 2k can never get into football market and be competitive. So why should EA pay the NFL what they did in 2005? Who is the NFL going approach who will offer anything near that? Especially now that game day, fever and 2k have been dead since the ps2 days.

[FaceMask]

Quote: Originally Posted by hanzsomehanz

Prestige warrants a price! If other pro sports are being sold for xyz why enter the market and sell yours for abc? Get on you xyz's or get out: 2K got *punted out of the NFL Football gaming market. If they want to sell for $19.99 they can now go sell a non-NFL licensed product for that said quote. If I introduce a new footwear line that is by face value on the same level of Nike and Under Armour in respect to prestige: why sell it at Walmart prices, even for one year - why? Why would a company like Sfarbucks sell cheaper than their competitors? Starbucks has a prestige to maintain - you're selling social value as much as you are price to product value when you put prestige in perspective. EA has much more social value in Electronic Football than anyone else - they always have but who is 2K to come in and offer *half-price for the same NFL licensed product? What is your view on the NFL prestige? Should the NFL not expect to see their (video game) products sold in line with the other major sport competitors? Why should an NFL team hat go for much less than an MLB or NBA hat? Do bobble heads not all sell for about the same unit price regardless of sport? You want to speak on conspiracy theories but I say: if you speak on this subject without respecting prestige: you are being totally absent minded to the major scope of this argument and fallout re; the NFL liscense. EA and the NFL make better prestigious partners than TakeTwo and NFL. Good luck seeing the NFL partner with some cheap Joe Snow line of footwear over Nike or UA - $19.99 does not speak the NFL language of prestige - not when your competitors are selling their sport titles for double that price. Learn a lesson from all this or you will do as 2K did and lose in your market too because you will lose the battle of prestige - it is the same pull that gets college recruits to favor one side over another. The $19.99 quote is what muddied the waters - not much else was an impetus for either side. Sent from my SGH-I727R using Tapatalk

Lots of interesting things there.

I understand what you think is an issue, and I can understand why the general consumer would look at it that way, but it's all conjecture. This is not how the NFL was thinking at the time, nor are they today. As long as they're getting paid 10's of Millions upfront, they're not going to care what the retail price of a product is. It doesn't work that way. This was purely an EA vs. 2K issue concerning pricing, profit margin and market share.

Besides, 2K wasn't planning to keep the price at that level forever. This was a one-time thing to gain market visibility, and boy did it work. For as much as their is conjecture about cheapening, what nobody is considering is how confident 2K had to be that their product would be responded to in the way it was. Had it bombed, it would've likely ended their development on football. Everything they did that year was white knuckle and rebellious, and I loved every minute of it.

Unfortunately, football development ended anyway because of the licensing issue, but 2K did take a huge leap of faith there because they believed in themselves that their product deserved more share because it was good enough, and I agreed with them. So did about 4.26 Million others.

[hanzsomehanz]

Quote: Originally Posted by FaceMask

Lots of interesting things there. I understand what you think is an issue, and I can understand why the general consumer would look at it that way, but it's all conjecture. This is not how the NFL was thinking at the time, nor are they today. As long as they're getting paid 10's of Millions upfront, they're not going to care what the retail price of a product is. It doesn't work that way. This was purely an EA vs. 2K issue concerning pricing, profit margin and market share. Besides, 2K wasn't planning to keep the price at that level forever. This was a one-time thing to gain market visibility, and boy did it work. For as much as their is conjecture about cheapening, what nobody is considering is how confident 2K had to be that their product would be responded to in the way it was. Had it bombed, it would've likely ended their development on football. Everything they did that year was white knuckle and rebellious, and I loved every minute of it. Unfortunately, football development ended anyway because of the licensing issue, but 2K did take a huge leap of faith there because they believed in themselves that their product deserved more share because it was good enough, and I agreed with them. So did about 4.26 Million others.

Wait, what in your view helped EA secure the deal then opposed to sooner?

The project did bomb - considering their competition: a price slash that significant is an act of desperation, moreover a concession to defeat.

If the NFL had faith in your vision of their plans: they would let their vision play out and have the consumer base divided between the lot of 2K lovers and EA lovers and have competition continue to drive higher demand - all the while they could be raising the value of the shared license.

If the NFL only cared for the dollars and EA was the firstest with the mostest - why not settle w EA sooner? Was the $19.99 quote a blessing in disguise for the NFL in that it compelled EA to act swift out of insecurity?

Does the NFL not see that eventually EA can scrap the sole exclusive title and sign a restructured deal for a shared liscense?

So, in your view, who is the Pied Piper here and who is the company being deceived and led astray?

What I takeaway: you are simply illustrating that money talks and EA simply raised their offer on gaining exclusive rights until the NFL said "deal".

Would this predicament of an outcome we are in now then be inevitable based on your illustration that the NFL lisence was bought out like a harlot to the highest bidder?

Perhaps 2K was never suited to stay.

Not knowing those numbers, I would imagine the price covers what they both currently paid to the NFL as a shared liscense and then some.

If, again, it was merely about raising the stakes, why defend 2K for even joining the market if they never stood a chance to survive: considrring EA always held the upperhand and stood with a fincancial foothold on the market?

A leap of faith, indeed.

Sent from my SGH-I727R using Tapatalk

[spankdatazz22]

Quote: Originally Posted by hanzsomehanz

What I takeaway: you are simply illustrating that money talks and EA simply raised their offer on gaining exclusive rights until the NFL said "deal". Would this predicament of an outcome we are in now then be inevitable based on your illustration that the NFL lisence was bought out like a harlot to the highest bidder?

Perhaps you should stop looking at the situation only from an NFL perspective. You seem to be ignoring that the NCAA football and Arena Football League licenses also went exclusive, all within a week or two of it happening with the NFL. Again, it takes a ridiculous leap of logic to assume they were all coincidences. Especially when you consider 2K or Sony weren't even making college football games at the time. And neither had attempted an Arena League game.

EA had.

And through some miracle all these entities decided at once to make their licenses exclusive at the same time. They basically decided to raise their licensing fees to an amount [that had to be more than what they would've gotten collectively from multiple suitors] at a time when no one other than EA was showing interest in their properties. Give me a break.

EA acted to keep 2K or anyone else from making a legitimate football game by locking up every major U.S. football license - period.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

A few things: 1 - there's a litany of factors which have affected EA's stock price since 2004, some of which cannot be discussed here; between external factors and that EA is a massive company, to solely peg a lower stock price on the NFL exclusivity arrangement is shortsighted at best 2 - stock price is not company revenue 3 - looking at EA's investor reports, their net income was higher in FY 2013 than FY 2005 by about half a billion dollars; I don't know if that is "their highest ever" but they are bringing in more money right now than they did as a company in the pre-exclusivity world

Point taken and I just linked something I felt might be relevant to the point that to state EA is worth more now because of the NFL exclusive license was NOT factual. Granted I guess I could have done the in a better way.

[Kramer5150]

Quote: Originally Posted by spankdatazz22

EA acted to keep 2K or anyone else from making a legitimate football game by locking up every major U.S. football license - period.

EA also locked up the ESPN license too around that time if I'm not mistaken...they not only wanted football locked up,but also wanted to lock up any game using ESPN broadcasting....which coincidentally was used by 2k as well.

[Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by SageInfinite

So basically 1 and 3 could have nothing to do with the exclusive license?

The short answer to the question is "yes".

The long answer is that I think that they're both just small pieces to a bigger puzzle whose scope is beyond sports video games and even video games.

[Robo COP]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

Ok first off you stated that, "EA is STILL making more money than they ever did when they had that competition. Why would they care? Why would they want that competition back if they are making more money?" However going by these links, the stock price for EA was at the highest ever in 2004, during competition and down a little less than half that now. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...rs-of-a-buyout http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ea Secondly you stated, "Oh and let us not forget that THE NFL WAS THE ONE WHO WAS SHOPPING THEIR EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS AROUND. EA didn't just say hey, let us buy the rights to get rid of the competition. The NFL MADE THIS HAPPEN!" However according to these links EA had been lobbying for a NFL exclusive license for years prior and admitted to buying the rights to get rid of competition, in court documents. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/big.../1100-6114977/ http://easportslitigation.com/pdf/Pa...20Part%201.pdf

stock prices have absolutely nothing to do with the revenue brought in from a video game. Absolutely nothing. The decline in economy and the recession have to do with why their stock prices dropped. Has no correlation whatsoever to the amount of money brought in from Madden.

Alright. However it doesn't matter if EA was lobbying for the rights for years. When the NFL was shopping them they fielded offers from both 2K and EA. EA didn't just make a deal without 2K ever realizing it. 2K had a chance to make the deal and failed to deliver in that regard

Quote: Originally Posted by SageInfinite

I didn't pretend like I knew anything. I just stated my opinion. The only one being condescending is you by trying to **** on my opinion by assuming I don't know anything and wouldn't be successful. I was just making the point to not assume things about people you don't know, that's it. We have different opinions and I was leaving it at that.

Sorry about that. I didn't realize you were the same person I was having the back and forth with before (it was late and I was skimming through).

All I can say is, this is kind of my area of expertise. So it's frustrating when people come in throwing out statements of this and that when they are clearly seeing it through the eye of the consumers. I'm not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing, but if you flip the tables and put yourself on the business side of it it is very clear to see why EA did what they did. I can understand being mad about it all as a consumer (like I said I now hate Madden because it is so terrible IMO) but you can't villainize EA when they did the most logical thing they possibly could have done.

Maybe they should've followed up the licensing agreement with hiring the entire 2K crew to work on Madden