Bucks for Becks. And insults.

The big international sporting news is that the most famous person on the planet, David Beckham, is coming to America to play with the Los Angeles Galaxy of Major League Soccer.

The big drama is when Beckham might start playing with Los Angeles. It certainly does not help that the president of his current team, Réal Madrid, talked about Beckham's inability to be loyal to his current team now that a contract was signed that starts after his current contract runs out and that he's washed up.

It's not hard at all to find opinions on this being a good or a bad signing - certainly it is about growing the sport in the United States as much as it is about the Galaxy's ability to win the MLS Cup, the MLS Supporter's Shield, or the just-formed North American tournament called the SuperLiga.

However, the focus here is on the belief that a player cannot work (play) for one sports team in one league after signing a contract that begins once his current contract ends. Oddly enough, there's a case from 1974 that rejected that notion. Bill Bergey, a defensive player who is still well-liked in my hometown of Philadelphia, was playing for the Cincinnati Bengals (of the National Football League) at the time when he signed with the Virginia Ambassadors of the then-new World Football League. Bergey's Ambassadors contract was to start only after his Bengals contract expired at the end of the season.

The Bengals sued and the case is now known as Cincinnati Bengals v. Bergey 453 F.Supp 129 (S.D. Ohio 1974).

The parallel isn't quite the same as both football leagues were in competition with each other in the U.S. and now the two soccer leagues are international and regulated by international agreements on how players can move from league to league. But it's the notion that a player can't play for the team in this league with a contract that starts later in a new league.

The court rejected that notion. Why? Bergey had "no intention of seeking an early release" from his Bengals contract. The court in this case found that Bergey had every intention of fulfilling his Bengals contract. He was not breaching the contract. He was not interfering with the business of the Bengals, either. "The Court concludes that there is no incentive to Bergey to compromise with his pride in his playing ability which impels him to be the aggressive player that he is."

What a quaint notion.

Is There Branding in Sports Uniforms?

After a brief vacation from writing, the Law Form is back up and running. Don't forget to view the archive at www.TMCEntLawForum.com.

I spoke with Paul Lukas, an expert on sports uniforms. You can read his Uni Watch column on ESPN.com's Page 2 and read his Uni Watch Blog (which is a semi-daily update of his uniform knowledge).

What kind of branding is involved with sports uniforms? Is it the team or is it the company that makes the uniforms?

Sports teams used to individually make a contract with an outfitter to make their uniforms. Several different companies made uniforms in every professional league. In college, it is still true that each school has a contract with an outfitting company.

One quirk comes in 1997, the year the Denver Broncos changed their uniforms. Nike was the first outfitter to design a uniform. What does this mean? The nostril of the bronco logo forms the Nike "swoosh" logo. Also, when a player is bent over (as in a three-point stance at the line of scrimmage), the Nike swoosh logo is apparent in the right leg (check out this picture, though the swoosh is backwards on the left leg). And in another ironic twist, Nike competitor Reebok is the current outfitter for all NFL teams.

"Teams are brands," says Paul Lukas. It's a form of "intense loyalty" to a brand. One example of people leaving a brand when it did not taste like it used to is New Coke. When sports teams do badly, fans may not go to games, but they do not abandon their teams. Mets fans do not root for the Yankees during the (many) lean years. If the Mets and Yankees traded their rosters, would fans change their allegiance? Probably not. Oakland Raiders fans will not be seen wearing San Francisco 49ers jerseys during their trying times.

The big branding experiment has come in college football, though. Nike has designed uniforms for many teams, and they do look similar. Wake Forest and Illinois (rear view) are two examples of the typical Nike pattern. Nike also has taken the same different approach at Virginia Tech, Florida, and Miami, where one shoulder is a different color. It all is a part of being a part of "Team Nike," as Lukas said.

It does appear as if there is more than one type of branding in sports uniforms. The fans may root for the laundry of the uniforms and keep that brand loyalty, but it looks as if the teams themselves are falling under another type of branding from outfitter companies.

Higher Ticket Prices!

There are several different articles about several fans suing the Chicago Cubs for scalping their own tickets to games.

How would this happen?

According to all reports, the Cubs set up their own company, Wrigley Field Premium Tickets, owned by the same company that owns the Cubs (the Tribune Company), run by a Vice President of the Chicago Cubs, and had the Cubs do the accounting.

Since it was adopted in 1923, Illinois' Ticket Scalping Act states that entities that put on sporting events can sell a ticket for more than the face value.

Apparently, the Cubs sold the tickets to Wrigley Field Premium Tickets at face value and then WFPT sold tickets at a much higher rate.

Here, it seems as if the judge's opinion is as follows: Although both companies (the Cubs and WFPT) are owned by the same parent company (the Tribune Company), WFPT does not actually hold the sporting event. Apparently, neither does the Tribune Company. Therefore, WFPT can sell tickets at a higher rate than the face value.

All reports say that the plaintiff fans will appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

It is no stretch to see how this can harm consumers. A team can sell tickets to a sibling corporation, and then the sibling corporation raises prices through the roof. The team, being a part of this larger corporation, keeps all the profits of the larger price. The "face price" for tickets could possibly NEVER go up, but the reality would be different as the prices are raised significantly by the sibling company.

Also, throughout the years, many have asked if the Tribune Company (which publishes the Chicago Tribune) has a conflict of interest in covering the Chicago Cubs, the baseball team it owns. Why? Because the Tribune Company holds the sporting events. The Cubs might be a subsidiary of the Tribune, but the relationship is there to make many wonder. Why is a sibling company treated differently? It is all a part of the one.

(Another strange example of the lines between subsidiaries bleeding: ABC Sports will change to "ESPN on ABC" starting in September.)

Fantasy Baseball players can relax.

A judge has ruled that players' names and statistics (as a result of games) are not the intellectual property of Major League Baseball.

In what seems to be a logical ruling, the judge said that the names and statistics are not "copyrightable" and that if there were a right of publicity to be infringed, those rights are lost because newspapers publish the exact same information every day.

Why would Major League Baseball think that players' names and stats fall under copyright law? Is it because the games are broadcast in a fixed medium on TV and radio?

In the United States, the following classifications of expressions of ideas are bound by copyright law: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works.

But those broadcasts would be audiovisual or sound recordings. They would not be the games themselves. Here, there needs to be a separation of thought. The rights in the broadcast vs. the rights that may exist in the game itself.

(Unless baseball is a pantomimed or choreographed work? But, somehow, I think that only describes professional wrestling.)