On media rights

Most sporting events are strictly regulated when it comes down to media coverage. Aside from the fact that it is sometimes easy to accredit yourself for any given event, it is the use you give to that material what can get you in trouble. Actually, this article from Mashable, explains how anyone, literally anyone can be in trouble if posting, tweeting, emailing or texting copyrighted material. In this case the scenario will be the upcoming London 2012 Olympics, where not only NBC/Telemundo has the exclusive coverage of the games in America but also all of the video material for any other network has a 24 hours embargo on it.

This means that every fan attending the games should watch what they are sending to their friends? Well, in theory yes but it is impossible to restrict every single person from doing it. The media interaction will exist but all athletes participating of the games have been restricted from posting with brands or advertising material without the Olympic Committee consent. It will certainly be interesting to see how advertisers will bend the rules to get away with their athletes under the spotlight.

This reminds me of how strict and complicated coverage can be. The UEFA has set up an extensive set of rules for photos, video and even audio clips for all the Champions League. One of the most watched and demanded sporting products in the world represents on of the most complicated assignments there are because of all the policies there are to be met. Click here.

In my perspective it is a balanced deal. There is enough technology nowadays to allow a “natural” broadcast of games and championships. Those sporting moments every fan deserve to keep in their memories, whether it is a video, photo or sound. At the same time television networks, satellite companies advertising agencies and products still see the bright side ofcapitalism and collect for every big piece there is of theirs product. It won’t be easy to get away with stealing protected material and making money out of it. However, in my opiniom technology seems to have the better end of the story down the road.

Retrospective: NBA Lockout

Without a doubt the NBA Lockout in 2011 is the most prominent labor dispute in the last 5 years. Looking in retrospective there are many red flags that both team owners and the players association could have looked after in order to avoid endless hours of negotiation and upset fanatics eager to watch and support the sport. 

In July 2011 the owners of 22 of the 30 teams declared themselves as unprofitable. The statement called for an immediate resolution of how the revenue was being distributed and it set the scenario for the legal dispute. The players, on the other hand, dismissed the threats brought up by commissioner David Stern who later on would play the biggest roll in this negotiation.

The original petition by the owners was a 57%-43% split of the revenue in their favor. The players association believed that was outrageous and decided to offer a $500 million dollars to the owners and settle the case.

As we know this opened Pandora’s box. The owners showed that they where not kidding around with the negotiations. On October 4^th the NBA announced the cancelation of all exhibition games asking for a deal that would deliver 50-50% split revenue but the players association stood their ground. A week later the after seven hours of negotiation between the parties David Stern declared there was “no chance” to compromise and announced the cancelation of 2 weeks of regular season games, making it a 66 game season and upsetting fans, advertisers, arenas, players, staffers and even President Obama who acknowledge being a little “heartbroken”for the cancellation of the games.

The season as a whole was “in threat” and nobody really knew how the long negotiations where going. Some of the players left the Association to begin filling for anti-trust suits in states like Minnesota and California. It was not until November 26, 2011 that both parties where able to reach an agreement. The last offer put on the table by the owners was a bargaining agreement that left the players with 49% of the revenue and 51% for them. Making sure to let the association know that if they where to reject the offer the next one would be less favorable in their end.

It was a sour time for basketball players and the fans. Despite the number of camera crews that followed Stern and Fisher no-one, not even other players, knows exactly what happened in the negotiation table.

More than a 150 hours of negotiations and 149 days it took to resolve this problem.

However, Despite the controversy on the lockout affecting local economies there has been studies whish state: “somehow, the only discretionary income that people have are spent on pro sportsis just wrong”. In the article the NBA and the economy published by Time the author proposed that regular fans still spend the same amount of money in recreational activities whether they are related with professional basketball or not.

Lin-sane trademark

Before the shortened, highly anticipated and extremely competitive 66 game season of the NBA most people did not even know Jeremy Lin.

But most people do not include the Chinese manufacturer Wuxi Risheng Utility Co which makes about once million basketballs, volleyballs and soccer balls a year.

Either by a fortunate coincidence or a premonition of Lin’s success in the NBA the Asian company bought the trademark of Lin’s name in the Chinese language. “Lin Shuhao” or the shortened version S.H.L. was acquired legitimately through a Chinese entity that authorized the company to use the name for commercial purposes.

 A year later when the Taiwanese descendant player became an instant sports celebrity and the company did not hesitate on putting their rights to use.

As you can imagine, this did not set well for the Harvard graduate or his sponsor company: Nike. Only months before the Linsanity became a symptom that every New Yorker had voluntarily acquired the American company had signed an exclusive deal with the player for three years. Nike Co had full proprietorship of his name and image but did not anticipate that someone across the planet had already purchased the name for only $710 dollars.

It is uncertain if Nike can actually do anything against the Chinese company, following the commerce policies in China the company obtained the rights legally and could potentially sell their property for whatever value the may choose. This can become very costly operation for Nike, considering thefact that the player has now an immense popularity in Asia.

As per the name “Linsanity” the player himself applied for the trademark and is possible he will get the rights. Lin had to justify his intention of commercializing with this name unlike Wuxi Risheng, which according to the Chinese law did not have to prove their intention to capitalize on whatever name they decide to register.