Another exclusive deal entered into by a sports league has one wonder about the future results of the Supreme Court case American Needle v. the NFL and how it will affect sports fans. In August of 2009, Major League Baseball and Topps Company announced an exclusive deal for the baseball card creator to have the rights to use logos, trademarks, and other intellectual property on their baseball cards effective the first of the year.

Topps rival Upper Deck stated that it would not halt production on its line of baseball cards and continue to use team logos. Herein lies the point of contention and the basis for the lawsuit which finds the plaintiff, Major League Baseball properties, accusing Upper Deck of copyright infringement.

This is not the first lawsuit against Upper Deck to emerge from this newly established relationship between MLB and Topps after becoming bedfellows “more than 50 years ago” when previous generations were busy sticking Mickey Mantles and Honus Wagners (which would now by worth six-figures and up) in the spokes of their bycicles. Just this past November, Topps settled a lawsuit with Upper Deck for copyright infringement of several 1970′s Topps designs which were reproduced by Upper Deck in their 2009 series.

It would appear that the former Disney mogul, Michael Eisner, who took over ownership of Topps in 2007, is seeking to eliminate the company’s most fierce competition through admonishing their legal team to go forth and sue! In this case of Upper Deck’s use of team logos on their cards following the exclusive deal struck 6 months earlier, it is not apparent that Topps is to blame. Couldn’t this just be good business?

Through the eyes of the sports fan, that’s not typically the case. In fact, this exclusive deal with a marketer and manufacturer does cause one to recall the terms of NFL hat manufacturer American Needle’s case against the NFL which decided to end competition in the sub-market by signing an exclusive deal with Reebok. While the case will be decided in the Supreme Court by June, one thing is for certain: the NFL is not currently exempt from anti-trust suits, Major League Baseball enjoys the benefits of such status.

Generally speaking for sports fans, keeping lawsuits, and in turn, taxes and charges, at bay is in our best interest. Furthermore, competition breeds lower prices and the best deals for consumers. So, the case is another sign that allowing sports leagues, whether it be MLB today or the NFL tomorrow, to be exempt from anti-trust measures, is not in the best interest of consumers.

In full disclosure, another recent smudge on Upper Deck’s record – whether merely in the court of public opinion or in reality – can be found in the company’s dealings with Konami, the makers of the Yu-Gi-Oh brand. Upper Deck also settled this case out of court.

The SFC will be following this issue seeking to determine whether this baseball card lawsuit is simply a sign of Upper Deck conducting itself improperly in the marketplace and paying the penalty of such actions or of a bigger picture that will actually hit sports fans and collectors financially. The SFC is determined to educate sports fans on the sports business issues affecting their every day lives, and when large companies get together and strike deals, the goal is to get sports fans off the sidelines and on to the field to have a say in those big decisions.

Our friends at Hugging Harold Reynolds mentioned Sports Fans Coalition in a recent blog post here.

We were happy to do an interview with the very popular website’s staff which you can listen to here.

It should be noted that SFC wholeheartedly supports Playoff PAC in their fight to create a college football playoff and end the cartel’s (read: BCS)  dictatorial reign over post-season college football.

Whatever you do, DO NOT miss the video posted on the blog post.  If you have been paying any attention to Ari Fleischer’s PR campaign to save the BCS by smearing opponents, you’ll enjoy it.

It’s conceivable that all Santa Clara residents were not tuned in last night to their City Council’s 4-3 vote to include language on the ballot misrepresenting the upcoming 49ers stadium funding project. On June 8th, many Santa Clara residents will decide whether to approve a $937 million stadium project for their hometown NFL team thinking that the phrase “no new taxes for residents” actually means NO NEW TAXES FOR RESIDENTS.

The reality is something altogether different.

If approved, the measure being pushed by Santa Clarans for Economic Progress – a front group for the 49ers’ and NFL’s push to use taxpayer funds for new stadium construction in San Francisco – would seek completion of the new football stadium in 2014 with hopes of hosting the all-important Super Bowl; that golden carrot at the end of the stick.

The controversial language which has 3 out of 7 Santa Clara City Council members so frustrated, and rightfully so, fails to “mention the $114 million package of public contributions to the project, including redevelopment money and a special tax on guests in the city’s eight hotels.” What’s $114 million between friends?

Wait, there’s more.  The ‘no new taxes for residents’ line also rings untrue when one digs a little deeper and notices that the city plans to use stadium construction bonds in the range of $330 million hoping that they’ll make their money back on stadium naming rights, personal seat licenses, and a ticket surcharge.

Let’s pick this apart piece by piece.

Stadium Naming Rights:

In the midst of a recession, banking on stadium naming rights is not a smart business move.  Have you noticed how thin Sports Illustrated is becoming as ad dollars dry up? Stadium naming rights are no different. Citifield tried to renegotiate their deal, but the Mets weren’t having it.  Can you imagine any corporation with the cash to put their name on this building will be ponying up similar cash for this deal?  The answer is no.  It’s a naming rights buyers market.

Personal Seat Licenses:

The price you pay to pay for season tickets is outrageous. Leave it to owners to think up new schemes to bilk sports fans for more money. Seriously?  You mean I have to pay to pay? It’s not good enough that you spent 10 years on the waiting list dreaming of having your own seats 8 games a year.  You are actually required to pay these seat licenses in advance of the season ticket bill that lands in your mailbox like clockwork once a year.

Ticket Surcharge:

There is not a better description of this charge passed directly on to sports fans than the word ‘tax’. So, the city and the team join together to build this new stadium, and tickets are, in turn, more expensive. While it is important to recognize where each penny of the total dollar figure for one 49ers ticket goes, the bottom line is that tickets will be more expensive.

To wrap up this dissection of the additional $330 million on the tax payers backs, it is evident that funds coming from naming rights will be slim and the other two categories of ‘taxes’, personal seat licenses and ticket surcharges, will need to be expanded to make up the difference.  So, we’re not just talking about increases for inflation here. Get ready to pay to pay, and then, pay some more.

Finally, it is prudent to do the math. $117 million of redevelopment money and hotel taxes plus $330 million of construction bond funds add up to $447 million. If the stadium contruction costs stay within the $937 million budget (the team is supposed to foot the bill on any shortcomings of funding although it has been reported that there are “loopholes in this component”), only 47.7% of the budget will fall on the tax payers’ shoulders.

That’s all. Not exactly ‘no new taxes for residents’.

If recent history tells us anything, the 49ers are willing to lie to get their lies on the ballots. After the vote to approve the language, it cost the city another $390,000 to get the measure on the ballot.

It sounds like many Santa Clarans don’t know what their getting themselves into. Nor will they know any better if they walk into the voting booth without doing some research. Now, more than ever, we need SFC members to get the word out on the ground in San Francisco.

Thank goodness there are already boots on the ground in the form of Santa Clara Plays Fair fighting the misinformation campaign (see table below) through a mass email to residents explaining how the team’s campaign to deceive is succeeding. We need to keep up the fight through education, organization, and mobilization to protest sports stadium subsidies in San Francisco and across the country.

It appears to be an exciting matchup of two equally potent teams on offense led by prolific quarterbacks that even Brett Favre would acknowledge are the best in the game and deserving to take home the Vince Lombardi trophy to open this new decade.

While the excitement of the big game builds, it’s important to remember that we are heading into an upcapped year and a lockout in 2011 is imminent. Not trying to be ‘Debbie Downer’, but it’s true.  From a fans perspective, the owners – who have up until now done their best impression of G. Gordon Liddy at the Watergate hearings – better extend the olive branch to players to get this deal done.

Roger Goodell was seen pleading with both sides for the sake of the game as he delivered his State of the League address to media on Friday. To clarify, Goodell has a vested interest here as his legacy will take a major hit if he is not successful in this plea, and don’t forget SmartMoney’s ‘Thing 10′ in its article ’10 Things the NFL Won’t Tell You’:

“It’s just a business to us.”

In other sports business news, New York sports fans are well aware of the third new stadium construction project – following the Yankees and Mets new buildings – subsidized with taxpayer funds housing the Giants and Jets.  To signal the end of an era, demo crews have begun their work on the old venue in earnest.

Remember Cincinnati’s Nasty Tax Obligations, well the Bengals are offering to let Hamilton County off the hook with some concessions, paying 1-3 million a year in rent and upkeep of Paul Brown Stadium while seeking to have the county offers up proceeds from other events and a little political support in convincing  the city of Cincinnati to arrange a similar deal with the team. Stay tuned to SFC for updates.

Coming full circle, Miami local leaders are criticizing Dolphins owner Stephen Ross for seeking tax money to put a roof on Sun Life Stadium, home of tonight’s Super Bowl. And rightfully so. The roof would help Miami get another Super Bowl bid, but is it worth it?

The best quote to sum up a definitive answer to this quandry comes from Victor Matheson, a sports economist at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass, who co-wrote a 2004 paper on the big game’s economic impact:

“You could host a Super Bowl every year for the next 20 and be lucky to recoup your costs.”

Enough said.

South Florida has typically great weather for BIG events such as the cultural phenomenon we call the Super Bowl. Each year, the media frenzy grows to a new astounding and inconceivable level, and hosting the Super Bowl is a highly coveted ‘privelidge’ that is fought over year after year.

While flipping through all the feel-good stories, a story about an ‘umbrella’ catches one’s attention. Could it be? Rain on this day of utmost importance, the holy of holies? How will we truly know which team deserves the top trophy if the Super Bowl is played while hydroplaning on an inch of water?

After further review, this ‘umbrella’ was actually referring to the team’s interest in putting a new roof on Sun Life Stadium (recently changed from Land Shark Stadium), home of the Dolphins, as part of a new series of upgrades required by the NFL to continue to host future Super Bowls.

The word shark may have left the stadium’s name, but not the team’s legal department working on funding this umbrella. Guess who they would have pay for it all. That’s right, the taxpayers.

It is fair to assume that if the Miami-Dade Commissioners would sign off on the $490 million to support the new Florida Marlins stadium, it wouldn’t be a stretch to add half that, another $250 million rennovation project on the bottom of the tab. It’s like a really good tip that if you add it into the bill for large parties of 6 or more, you might just get tipped again without anyone noticing.

We’ve noticed. Miami residents have noticed and are showing resistance. The Sports Fans Coalition supports all of those local groups who oppose hefty public financing requests for sports stadiums.

The evidence shows that all the projected value – in terms of gentrification, luring business, and increased quality in fan experience – to an area where new stadiums are paid for with public funds is wrong. The boulder of debt on the shoulders of local government and taxpayers causes teachers to be laid off while a city such as Miami gets back into contention for Super Bowl 2014. More often than not, the projectors often have a stake in the game, and the taxpayers lose theirs.

Come to think of it, maybe a little rain wouldn’t hurt.