EA Obtains Exclusive NFL Licensing Rights

Grub writes "EA has signed a 5-year agreement with the NFL that gives them exclusive rights to use NFL players, teams, and stadiums in their products. CEO Larry Probst, 'The five-year agreement will usher NFL fans through the console technology transition with new ideas and innovative game play experiences.' This is a crushing blow to competitors and an enormous victory for EA, who will undoubtably make sure everyone knows that only they have NFL players and teams come next year's football game advertising bonanza."

Lovely.

[Spleener12]

As if EA wasn't enough of an evil, soul-sucking monstrosity.

Well, football fans, I hope you liked Madden 2005, because you're going to get that same game shoved down your throats with updated rosters for the next five years.

EA needs to die.

Ahhh. . . innovation

[TimmyDee]

"The five-year agreement will usher NFL fans through the console technology transition with new ideas and innovative game play experiences."

Because monopolies (this is a monopoly of sorts) always lead to innovation.

College?

[Anonymous Coward]

I predict a huge upswing in the popularity of NCAA-based games. Or maybe arena league ;)

Competition goes bye bye

[rinks]

I'm sure this has nothing to do with Sega's almost superior (and 30 dollars cheaper) ESPN football debuting this year... I see someone's posted that since Madden's the best game anyway, it doesn't matter. Well, it does matter, since being the only game in town doesn't exactly provide incentive to improve- or do anything but offer gamers the same thing every year with barely cosmetic changes.

Continues Slashdot's anti-capitalist agenda.

[Meor]

I want to know if there's a single for profit business out there that is cast in a positive light by Slashdot.

Go back to Russia you socialists.

Re:Lovely.

[sqrt(2)]

But this one says 2006!

Unfortunately, people will still buy them. Too bad more people don't realize that it's the same game!

Re:Ahhh. . . innovation

[nomadic]

Oh who cares, when was the last time you played a truly innovative sports game? By their very nature they can't go beyond the rules of the game they're based on.

Mod Parent Up

[arashiakari]

This is NOT a Troll! The NFL is granted a right to have a monopoly by congress, like MLB (Major League Baseball)... and the trade off is that the U.S. congress can sometimes step in and regulate it. This is fair because congress is a proportional representation of the population of the nation according to election - and the NFL did choose to derive their monopoly rights from congress.

SO... if the NFL is granted exclusive rights, are they allowed to themselves grant exclusive rights? It's a fair question, and important considering the ramifications.

Re:It's about time

[Anonymous Coward]

" I've been waiting for a CFL game to come along."

Well, you know Bob Young, one of the founders of Red Hat, is a CFL fan. He'd have to be, being the owner of the CFL's Hamilton Tiger-Cats. [ticats.ca] Perhaps we could contact him about seeing what he could do about getting a CFL game out there. :)

why blast EA?... go after then NFL..

[Moustache N Tits]

you know.. so far there are about 30 (level 1+) comments and I don't see anyone bad mouthing the NFL for this. I can't say I blame EA for going after this agreement. It's in their best interest and will give them a huge edge come next season. Who wants to play an NFL football game where you can't be Michael Vick and the rest of the Atlanta Falcons (or whoever). But what about the NFL for even LETTING this agreement happen?! If you are going to blast EA for going after a monopoly why not blast the NFL for supporting it?! I'd think it would be in their best interest to let more companies get licenses. How many people out there own both NFL 2k5 and Madden 2005?! I know my friend does... I know many people who did. So the NFL got double license fees from one customer. That's GOOD for the NFL. Also, what about all those people who are anti-Madden, either out of principle (for EA's employer practices) or because they just don't like the gameplay as much as NFL 2k5 (or others) like myself. I own 2k5 because I don't like Madden.. the graphics aren't as good, the gameplay is weak. If this deal had been in place last year the NFL wouldn't have gotten ANY of my money, whereas this year they got some from me purchasing NFL 2k5. This just seems like a bad choice for the NFL. It's a shame too because I get some serious football feaver in Aug and Sept and now next year I'll be back playing my old 2k5. Next year the NFL won't be getting any of my money from licensing deals.

Re:It's about time

[shawn(at)fsu]

People want to want the big boys
not a bunch of maybes and never-will-be's
Yeah because people never go to see a minor league or highschool game right...
Oh yeah right your wrong.

Re:Lovely.

[nolife]

The squeeky wheel no longer gets oiled, it gets replaced.

Re:why blast EA?... go after then NFL..

[josh3736]

Because the NFL is a business concerned only with making money. They don't give a rat's ass about console gamers. "Hey look, EA wants to give us millions of dollars to make a game they'd make anyway!" You can probably imagine the party the accounting department had.

Who gives a shit if they gave exclusive rights to the inferior product? The NFL made out like a bandit on the deal. NFL 7, gamers 0.

Tecmo!

[nic barajas]

It's time for a remake of Tecmo Super Bowl. Really, that was the greatest football game ever made.

They Might Not Let this one Stagnate...

[One Childish N00b]

Well, football fans, I hope you liked Madden 2005, because you're going to get that same game shoved down your throats with updated rosters for the next five years.

EA used to be like this with the FIFA Football (soccer to you Americans) licence - I'm pretty sure every FIFA game from 1996 to 2001 was the same damn game with just the rosters updated - they've got better since, though, and have been genuinely adding new features to every release since 2002 (mostly because a large section of the market began to realise that International Superstar Soccer, while not having the official licences, gave a superior gaming experience provided you didn't mind the names being a bit off). They saw the market was no longer stagnant and they had a serious competitor, so they started adding interesting features.

Provided one of the competitors takes it upon themselves to make a game that's more realistic than EA's offering gameplay-wise, a large chunk of the market will start to switch, official licence and rosters or not. Provided a competitor comes in with a worthy product, EA won't risk letting their marketshare slide, so don't bet too strongly on them letting this one stagnate. Let's call it a wait-and-see, shall we?

Double-take

[nobodyman]

I read this PR twice, convinced that I had read this wrong or that it was some kind of a hoax, thinking "can this mean what I think it means?".

This is bad. So very bad. If this is true (see above), this will essentially kill the football franchises of Sony/989 Studios [989sports.com], Sega [espnvideogames.com], and Midway [midway.com]. It doesn't matter how good a game is -- without the license to use the official teams and players, you are toast.

The immediate effect of this will be price. When Sega slashed it's sports line to $20, EA followed suit by dropping it's sports titles to $30. Think that will happen when EA has no competition? Quality will be the next to go -- what will be EA's motivation to innovate? When SCEA first released NFL Gameday for the Playstation, EA cancelled it's Madden because of its inferrior quality. They came back the next year with a much-improved offering. Without compeition, what will stop EA from shoveling out complete garbage? There wasn't a lot of year-on-year innovation in the first place, but now I'll be surprised if they do little more update the team rosters.

Oh, and doesn't easpouse's [livejournal.com] husband work for EA Tiburon [tiburon.com]? I guess that situation isn't going to improve. "Where else are you going to work? Sega? Bwah hah hah hah!". Guess I better figure out how the BCS works... damn you EA!!!

Re:Madden 64...

[prockcore]

It wouldn't be the first time Midway pulled off a football game without an NFL license. Back in 1990 or thereabouts (I forget the exact year), they released an arcade game called High Impact Football which used nonexistent teams.

Hell, even EA used to use fake names. NHL92 was an awesome game, but didn't use real teams nor real player names.. that came in NHL93 and was a huge deal at the time.

But I'm rather suprised no one has yet mentioned the definitive pre-license football game. Tecmo Bowl. Damn that game rocked.

EA already ruined the greatest NASCAR series...

[MWales]

Papyrus's last NASCAR game was 2003, before EA got the NASCAR exclusive license. We've been stuck with NASCAR Thunder series, and its nowhere even close. By by NFL2K and Visual Concepts.

NFL Players Inc

[tepples]

Who wants to play an NFL football game where you can't be Michael Vick and the rest of the Atlanta Falcons (or whoever).

NFL owns the team names and logos, and that's it. Has NFL Players Inc made a decision about this? If NFL Players Inc doesn't reach the same exclusive license, then all the other developers will be free to enter into contracts with NFL Players Inc, and their games will still let players be Michael Vick and the rest of the Atlanta Football Team.

Re:Madden 64...

[kfg]

And any number of racing sims eschew any sort of official license and have "the blue car" and "the red car."

I honestly don't understand all the branding crap, even in sports sims. All I care about is if the game is worth a crap.

Make the damned thing "skinable" and the community will make the silly graphics and such in short order, if it's worth playing in the first place.

KFG

Re:Ahhh. . . innovation

[Brian_Ellenberger]

Oh who cares, when was the last time you played a truly innovative sports game? By their very nature they can't go beyond the rules of the game they're based on.

Ah, but if you know anything about football you would know it is a very deep and complex game. Football reminds me of a chess game with real people where each side can choose their opening positions every play. It really is a facinating mixture of head knowledge and physical ability and requires years to fully appreciate.

And football games are getting more and more realistic every year. And not just in graphics. There is every bit or more strategy in a game like Madden 2005 as any Real Time Strategy game---with surprising less "twitching". Don't let the fact that it is a "sports game" fool you into thinking its a dumb mindless fast-twich fest. There is alot more to the game than picking a 4-3 in running situations and a Dime in passing ones.
You can't win without using your brain.

Brian Ellenberger

Re:Perfect

[killjoe]

On a somewhat serious note perhaps this will give competitors the opportunity to base games on less popular but more fun to watch sports.

rugby, australian rules football, and arena football come immediately to mind.

Perhaps even made up sports. Calvinball anyone?

An alegory of rape

[Scrameustache]

I've never known a worker who got taken advantage of who didn't consent to it, either by their silence or their signiture.

Hey, she was asking for it!

As for the hours, that's the games industry; love it or get out.

Neat, so they only are taken advantage of because they agreed to, and if they don't: get out.
Super, just... super.

Best sports game ever...

[WIAKywbfatw]

Speedball 2: Brutal Deluxe. If you've played it, either one or two player, then you know what I'm talking about.

before you blame EA

[Alban]

If Sega/ESPN had been offered the same deal, do you think they would have hesitated even one second?

Re:Lovely.

[badasscat]

There really isn't competition.
CBS and Fox each have exclusive contracts to a different conference, ESPN/ABC have exclusive rights to Sunday night and Monday night respectively.

I don't think you're quite getting it.

Nobody but EA can produce an NFL game for the next five years. You're saying "it's the same in TV! It doesn't matter that Fox, ABC, CBS, and ESPN can all broadcast games, because they each have their own part of the league!" This may be true, but how does it compare to EA's total monopoly on the league? It's not like EA has the NFC and ESPN has the AFC, or like you get to play EA's game on Tuesday nights and ESPN's game on Thursday nights. No, because EA has everything. This is not comparable to TV broadcast rights.

Also the CBS and Fox presentations aren't in direct competition, one gets the morning timeslot, the other gets an afternoon timeslot.

This is actually completely irrelevant (for the same reason as above), but I still want to correct it because it's not true. In your area (New York, for example), there may be a deal whereby the AFC team and the NFC team play at different times of day to allow everybody in the area to see each team. (This has nothing to do with TV broadcast rights, btw.)

But if you live in a city that does not have a home team, or even that has only one team on a date when the blackout rule does not apply, then you could be watching both CBS and Fox at the same time, from 1 PM to 7 PM. There's no such thing as a morning/afternoon slot in terms of TV broadcast rights. Both networks broadcast simultaneously all day long; you just don't see every game in every market (but you do see two simultaneous games in a lot of markets - the two networks sure as hell do compete directly).

Even in New York, towards the end of the season we can watch the other network while both home teams are playing.

And this is not even counting "NFL Sunday Ticket", which is a whole other matter that gives you like 16 different channels of NFL action if you pay for it.

Again, though, say it with me:

TV = three networks on four channels (and many more than that if you pay for it)
Games = one company with exclusive rights, and no choice whatsoever.

Not comparable.

Solid 2005 offering? No way.

[bs_02_06_02]

Hockey, there's no competition because it's not that popular. Look at TV coverage. Even ESPN would rather put college basketball up against pro hockey. The reason no one competed against EA was because no one wanted to for such a small market.

The truth is, at $20, ESPN was putting the hurt on EA. EA's entire business model depends on $50 a game. With the reviews given to ESPN, the average teenager with $20 in his pocket is going to buy ESPN and tell EA to go ____ themselves, especially when EA stays at $50 a title.

ESPN put out a good product, competed on price, and EA couldn't stand seeing their sales drop. EA waited 3 months, then finally dropped the price to $20. That tells me that they felt the pain, and as a result, they went after exclusive rights to NFL gaming. No more ESPN. Next season, you'll see the game back at $50 or even higher.

Can't Wait for EA NFL Porsche 2K6

[The-Bus]

Well...

In Project Gotham Racing you can race several Porsches (Porsche Boxster S, Porsche Cayenne Turbo, Porsche 550 Spyder, Porsche 911 RS 2.7, Porsche Carrera Coupe, Porsche 911 Turbo, Porsche 911 GT3, Porsche 959, Porsche Carrera GT, Porsche 911 GT1). Did Bizarre Creations/MS pay money that Sony did not have?

The Grand Turismo series (at least in GT3) at least makes up for the no-Porsches rule by having Ruf [ruf-automobile.de] models (I believe the CTR2 [rim.or.jp] is the "ultimate" car you can get). It's not an "imaginary" model at all. If anything, the Ruf CTR2 (especially) makes the "supercars I dream of list" for a lot of enthusiasts. You're just unlikely to ever see a Ruf outside of Germany (and it is a Ruf, not a "Ruf Porsche").

And the Cayenne? Porsche has had record profits because of the Cayenne. If I was an employee and my dividends just went up 30/60 cents per share I would be AOK with it. Unfortunately the Cayenne is distasteful (I'm not talking about the Turbo and I can let the S slide without too much else to say). But the base model seems like a gussied-up Volkswagen -- no wait, it is! And a gussied-up Touareg base model at that. I digress.