Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Correct. Something like this happened with Nike and the NBA when it banned the original Air Jordans. This only made Nike a tone of money when they used that in ads.

The Jordan kerfuffle was slightly similar but entirely different. Similar in the fact that the shoes were banned. That's where the similarity ends. The original Jordans were banned for the lack of white in the shoe. It was black and red only. Nike, the brand, was never banned. They paid a few fines, got some good marketing, and eventually made a pair of Jordans that were black, red, and white; thus conforming with NBA rules back then. It's (the rule) not the same now.

This is different. In this instance, Bose is the official headphone maker approved for marketing purposes in the NFL. This only applies to a players on camera time before, during (in the case of an injured, non-dressing player on the sideline), and after the game. This is nothing new and it's common in sports, not just the NFL. On their personal time players can wear whatever they like: Beats, Bose, Grado, Senn or whatever.

Players also can't drink Powerade in an interview. They can't wear Reebok T-Shirt sitting at the podium. They can't... you get the picture. The only way around it is 1. Get fined; and they do escalate. 2. Wear what you want but cover the offending logo. On the field, shoes and gloves are the only exempt items.

The players are used to it and really don't care. It's just business.
 
So wear Beats headphones when not working / playing the sport with the official Bose logo on it.

Seriously, who owns whom?

And who buys headphones because of who wears them on TV? I don't need a $300 set of headphones to listen to my tunes.
 
I'm not that much of a fanboy, and not American so have very little interest in NFL... but this does raise some interesting legal questions that very few here could answer, and without actually reading the contract it's all speculation anyway, but it certainly looks like there could be a legal fight. I'll be interested to see how it plays out.

Personally, I'd think Bose and the NFL have overstepped what they're allowed to control, based on the league having sponsors, the teams having sponsors and individual players having sponsors. Obviously, it would be irresponsible for a player to sign a deal with Adidas if their team was sponsored by Nike, as it's a little too close. But if it was only the referees sponsored by Nike, I'd think that would be a fair choice as there's quite a bit of separation there.

In this case, both brands are in the audio field, so they're very close, but it's not a team decision. Further, Apple/Beats didn't sign a deal after Bose, but rather it was the other way around. They knew they'd be causing legal conflicts in contracts with a certain percentage of players (presumably quite high)... so I'd say either Bose or more likely the NFL has promised something that they can't give. Then again, that depends what contracts the players and teams have with the league... I haven't seen them, but I can imagine things are very specific so the NFL better be sure what they've sold can actually be enforced ;)



Was thinking it might go the other way, with players forced to not use anything, affecting performance, and then they might say as much in interviews. The league might be sponsored by Bose after all, but if they can't get out of their contracts with Apple the league is putting their own players in a very strange place.

But I do realise it's all about making money, the league doesn't care about their players beyond cashflow.

The TL;DR version is there are no legal issues whatsoever. All of the questions you asked are covered under the NFL/NFLPA (Players Associatation) Collective Bargaining Agreement. A players endorsement deals only covers personal activity outside of the NFL. A specified period before, during, and after games is governed by the NFL CBA. The NBA, MLB, NHL, and most other major professional sports leagues have similar arrangements.
 
I still think the NFL is wrong for changing the rules mid-stream. Some of the players' endorsement contracts may now be in violation of the league's rules, and I don't think the league has any right to do that without a grace period to let current individual player's endorsement deals to run their courses.

Somebody gave an example of their company demanding the use of Note4's. Okay fine. But what about employees who already have contracts with various carriers and those contracts have up to two years yet to run? A smart company would make it contingent on some period of time; a grace period for you to comply. And if you have to pay any penalties or lose any income for breaching your outside deal, then your company should pay that penalty.

No, what they're doing now is just wrong. It's bad treatment of players who make millions of dollars just as it would be wrong for people making 50K per year.

If your company or your league allowed endorsement deals to begin with, they can't just change the rules on you! Your company or your league has no right to demand this without some promise to help make things right with your carrier or your outside contracts.
 
More than likely player's contracts with the teams have clauses covering such situations. Even if they didn't the NFL is a private organization that has a right to control how their product is presented on the air.

It would be interesting to see the NFL start to behave like a "private organization".

To start, I'd like to see that antri-trust exemption yanked. Then they could be like every other organization with a "product" to be "controlled" or "presented".
 
And let's not forget the NFL is an organization that is technically a nonprofit that pays no taxes, but regularly signs exclusive endorsement deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
 
Roger Goodell was quoted as saying "NFL players will only be allowed to wear Bose headphones and use Surface tablets while beating the crap out of their signifigant others."

Tim was quoted as saying "Apple employees will only be allowed to wear Beats headphones and use iPad tablets while denying paternity of their kids."

Those who live in glass houses...
 
I still think the NFL is wrong for changing the rules mid-stream. Some of the players' endorsement contracts may now be in violation of the league's rules, and I don't think the league has any right to do that without a grace period to let current individual player's endorsement deals to run their courses.

Somebody gave an example of their company demanding the use of Note4's. Okay fine. But what about employees who already have contracts with various carriers and those contracts have up to two years yet to run? A smart company would make it contingent on some period of time; a grace period for you to comply. And if you have to pay any penalties or lose any income for breaching your outside deal, then your company should pay that penalty.

No, what they're doing now is just wrong. It's bad treatment of players who make millions of dollars just as it would be wrong for people making 50K per year.

If your company or your league allowed endorsement deals to begin with, they can't just change the rules on you! Your company or your league has no right to demand this without some promise to help make things right with your carrier or your outside contracts.

More than likely there is a clause in the contract that allow for this. Players must follow NFL rules. I'd be very surprised if the t's weren't crossed and the i's not dotted.
 
HAHAHAH Your post is so stupid I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. If you think Apple can manhandle the NFL you're nuts. You're also apparently so far apples butt you're ignoring contractual advertising agreements between sponsors and companies that have been going on since forever. But I guess since it's apple the courts will bow down to them. And you think Apple has deeper pockets than the NFL?

----------



I would have thought that if anyone knew the answer to that question it would be someone named Dale.

I'm pretty sure Apple does indeed have "deeper pockets than the NFL"....

"Aug 21, 2014 - The 32 NFL franchises are now worth more than $45 billion combined."...... Apple has +/- 160 billion in CASH, not even total assets...

If you were referring to "value of brand", Apple's brand is highest valued (according to Forbes http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/) at 104.3 billion....
 
Bose is the best!

I have been using their LifeStyle (Jewel Cube Speaker System) since 2002 without any major work. I had to replace the board once to make it compatible with power source in my country as I bought this in another place. It is a work horse and I never had any issues except compatibility ones due to age of the product but sound system is still crystal clear!
 
This summary is missing the fact that all Headphones except for Bose are banned.
Yeah, people here don't have a lot of depth in their thought processes.

So, does this mean that all the Motorola headsets used by coaches during games will now turn into Bose? Seems a questionable move, I'm not even sure Bose makes products in that market. But they are technically "headphones", so....
 
HAHAHAH Your post is so stupid I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. If you think Apple can manhandle the NFL you're nuts. You're also apparently so far apples butt you're ignoring contractual advertising agreements between sponsors and companies that have been going on since forever. But I guess since it's apple the courts will bow down to them. And you think Apple has deeper pockets than the NFL?

----------



I would have thought that if anyone knew the answer to that question it would be someone named Dale.


Well I believe apple has deeper pockets than the nfl
 
People just need to stop trying to force their listening preferences onto other people. It's okay for people to like bass in their music. Not every song has to sound like a 100 pound weakling.
Irony. Classic.

Guess you didn't know that someone mixes songs. They must all suck at it, right? :rolleyes:
 
Well, if the company's that do produce awesome sound in general did their marketing right there would have been no market for companies like beats to penetrate. I have had Audio technica, and AKG's in the past but I do not see folks that have no intention to spend 20 hours of research on the internet on all matters "audio" going in for them. These guys will drop 300+ On beats, for good or bad. The only really thing beats has done has been to focus the younger demographic on headphones and have them think about dropping a lot of money for sound. Where can this go from here? I hope that Apple steps in with its engineering and put some solid work on beats audio quality with which it can appeal to many connoisseurs of sound. If not I sincerely hope that the crowd that beats is successfully drawing towards spending money on sound, grows up and discovers the entire spectrum of great sounding headphones at similar (or lower) price range that brings high quality sound optimized for different listeners.

At the end of the day, Beats is a culture and those that attack it based on sound really do not understand how it operates and what it looks to target. I think beats is kind of counting on the competition taking the argument to a level of sound engineering that its demographic really doesn't understand or care to :) , in the end others need to make their products more desirable then beats and unless someone steps up and does so beats will continue to sell and command the majority of market. Heck Bose has done so for so long through marketing.

The only thing i want from beats is a kill switch that will lower the thefts..

The companies are starting to respond to the new landscape!
My most recent headphone purchase was after watching a BRUTALLY honest interview with Daniel Sennheiser at CES this year... He bluntly admitted that his company for generations had been an engineering company, solely trying to engineer the finest sound... that they knew NOTHING about fashion & that their sales took a beating while they learned a lesson.. that (suddenly), that is important.
He was wearing their response around his neck... I bought a pair the same day! The on-ear Momentums in green. Better looking by far than anything Beats has made. Simultaneously retro & modern... classy, hip, elegant- one of the handsomest pairs of cans I've ever seen! I put them up there with the burl wood Beyerdynamics.
Lol, I'm glad (though I'd NEVER own a pair) that Beats pushed the market forward in this way. As much as I love the impeccable sound of my Grado SR80i's, they are a terrible looking design... nothing fashionable about them whatsoever.... I could tell a Beats owner all day about how they cost me $150 and stomp the piss out of their $300+ pair, have them listen to what REAL clean, true, deep bass sounds like- but at the end of it all they could say "yeah, but I'm not gonna be caught wearing those" & I have no response.
It feels good to now own my first pair of "designer" cans that are also sound engineered to kick oh so much ass! Btw, they come in at $150 as well.
 
Social issues aside, your point has nothing to do with the topic.

The topic is NFL players are under contract to wear Bose and not Beats. You are under the delusion that they would never break a legal, social or moral contract. I have a laundry list that proves otherwise. Are we supposed to start comparing specs of Beats vs. Bose because I don't see what else the topic could be about?
 
I think the NFL is facing the possibility of the nine-figure lawsuit--and this on top of a their recent PR debacles and the head concussion lawsuit and the prescription drug abuse lawsuit.

Apple will remind the NFL that the last thing the NFL wants is another legal entanglement.
 
I think the NFL is facing the possibility of the nine-figure lawsuit--and this on top of a their recent PR debacles and the head concussion lawsuit and the prescription drug abuse lawsuit.

Apple will remind the NFL that the last thing the NFL wants is another legal entanglement.
I don't understand the posts like this. I suppose it is possible that the NFL has screwed themselves and broken one contract to start another...but I really doubt it. So what is there to sue about? Don't get me wrong, I detest marketing, but this is all legal.
 
Everyone is bashing the quality of beats while ignoring the fact that an updated/new set of headphones have been released from beats since it was acquired by Apple. The quality of pre-apple beats have nothing to do with Apple. Give them an update or two before condeming Apple for their decision. Perhaps Apple saw the power of the brand and wanted to tap the potential of that while also seeing a need to improve the technology. If Apple can solve the technical issues with beats they have the potential to benefit vastly.
 
I think the NFL is facing the possibility of the nine-figure lawsuit
“The NFL has longstanding policies that prohibit branded exposure on-field or during interviews unless authorized by the league. These policies date back to the early 1990s and continue today,” an NFL spokesperson said in a statement. “They are the NFL’s policies – not one of the league’s sponsors, Bose in this case. Bose is not involved in the enforcement of our policies. This is true for others on-field.”

I'm pretty sure that the NFL is pretty sure that it's pretty watertight on this one, and that any players who have contracts with Beats which explicitly require them to wear the product during interviews are in breach of pre-existing clauses in their own NFL contracts.

I doubt such contracts exist, anyway. Surely 99% of Beats-wearing players are doing so for all the Beats they can eat, rather than being in a formal relationship with the company?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.