Washington v. National Football League
880 F. Supp. 2d 1004
D. Minnesota2012Background
- Former NFL players sue NFL entities and 32 teams alleging antitrust violations over sale of players' images and game footage.
- Case is analogous to Dryer v. National Football League; plaintiffs seek royalties for use of likenesses.
- Defendants include NFL, NFL Ventures, NFL Productions, NFL Enterprises, and all 32 NFL teams.
- Plaintiffs claim defendants monopolize market for former players' likeness by withholding game footage and images.
- Court analyzes under Rule 12(b)(6) and Twombly, finding no plausible antitrust claim; copyright ownership structure central.
- Court concludes the claimed restraints are either lawful copyright practices or royalties issues, and dismisses with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the NFL-conduct constitute illegal concerted action under Sherman Act? | Plaintiffs, citing American Needle, allege concerted action. | Defendants argue no concerted action when teams own IP separately; NFL ownership of footage cannot be treated as single entity. | No illegal concerted action under Sherman Act. |
| Do the allegations state a Sherman Act §1/§2 violation given ownership of game footage? | Market is footage of NFL games; restraints arise from NFL's copyright control. | Copyright permits controlling sale; market reality involves collectively owned footage not actionable antitrust restraint. | Counts fail to state a Sherman Act claim. |
| Is the dispute a royalties issue rather than antitrust? | If NFL won’t pay use of images, plaintiffs have a rights of publicity/royalties claim. | Copyright-based conduct not antitrust; royalties claim not antitrust. | Claim dismissed as antitrust, with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Needle, Inc. v. Nat’l Football League, 130 S.Ct. 2201 (U.S. 2010) (concerted action possible; IP ownership structure matters)
- National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1984) (rule of reason and market definition considerations)
- Broad. Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 441 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1979) (restraints may be necessary to market a product)
- Chess Music, Inc. v. Sipe, 442 F. Supp. 1184 (D. Minn. 1977) (copyrights create legal monopolies; not per se antitrust violation)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plaintiff must plead plausible claims)