If the NFL requires that any merchandise that has a TEAM logo have the NFL logo as well because of the team's affiliation, then I don't see how the Supreme Court made it's decision unless it's saying that the NFL can't make this requirement. And if that is the case, then isn't the Supreme Court actually telling the NFL what it can and can't do with it's intellectual property (the NFL Logo)??
I don't think the Supreme Court would say that the NFL, when deciding how to license its own intellectual property, is committing a consiracy under the Sherman Act. It is saying that when 32 teams agree to do it with their own IP, it's a conspiracy that may violate the Sherman Act
From a business perspective, I just don't see how the Supreme Court made it's decision because I can guarantee that large corporations go to a single vendor to get items with corporate logos made for it's various divisions. And the various divisions, many times, are considered independent business units. So, I don't understand how it's any different. But then, I'm not a lawyer and I do know that what makes sense and what is "the law" are many times, not the same.
The Supreme Court is saying, based on an analysis of the 32 teams and how they operate, that they are not at all like divisions of one company, but instead like 32 separate corporations that have formed a joint venture. Hard to argue with that premise, which is probably why the case was 9-0 and the NFL should have known it had no chance. The Court is saying that there may be good reasons why these 32 entities might want to restrain trade and why they should be allowed to do so -- like counterfeit products, inferior products, brand disparagement, or competitive balance. But the Court says these are not reasons to hold the NFL or NFLP is a single entity -- instead they are arguments the NFL can make about why its restraint on trade passes the rule of reasonableness.
From the FAN perspective, I don't see how the Supreme Court thinks that teams are competing for my loyalty through their apparel. Maybe some people like a team because of the team colors, but my guess is that for a majority of fans (75+%), you like a team for the team and buying the productS comes second.. Again -- not what the Court is saying. What it's saying is that the decision that a rational company makes about what to do with its intellectual property is not limited solely to economic considerations that are evened out by revenue sharing in all circumstances. I think there is no doubt that if the 32 teams were not pooling their IP, they would be making different decisions what to do with it. That's what the Supreme Court is saying.