Four years ago, the Washington franchise — after former owner Daniel Snyder said he’d NEVER change the team’s name and logo — changed the team’s name and logo. Now, as the first anniversary of the post-Snyder era approaches, it’s still not entirely clear that the organization has dumped the old name and logo.
This isn’t about whether the team should use its old name and logo. There’s a debate that might never end regarding whether the team should bring back the name and logo. (The logo, for example, became an issue this week in the effort to build a new stadium for the team at the site of RFK Stadium in D.C.) This is about whether the franchise is sending mixed messages about its position on the old name and logo.
Last year, for example, new owner Josh Harris used the abandoned name multiple times when speaking to fans. Limited partner Magic Johnson used the old name on Twitter, too.
Last weekend, coach Dan Quinn wore an unlicensed T-shirt that incorporates a portion of the old logo. The team had no official comment. However, the unofficial comment was that Quinn acted on his own and without knowledge of ownership.
This weekend, the team has posted birthday wishes to former linebacker London Fletcher. Conspicuous in the image is a helmet with the old logo.
(It wouldn’t have been hard to post an image of Fletcher without the logo being visible. The Commanders did it on his birthday in 2023. And in 2022. And in 2021. The image used for Fletcher’s birthday in 2018 and in 2017, before the name changed, also was shot from an angle that omitted the old logo.)
If there’s a clear organizational commitment under Josh Harris to abandon the old name and logo, all employees would (or should) know about it, from coaches to social-media employees to P.R. representatives to everyone. Memos and emails would be sent instructing everyone to never use the abandoned name or logo.
As it stands, the team under Harris is floating (deliberately or not) in a vague space of plausible deniability. On one hand, they say they’re never bringing the name and logo back. On the other hand, the old name and logo haven’t been fully and completely erased.
Again, this isn’t about whether the team should use its old name and logo. This is about whether the team has made a sufficiently compelling case that the old name and logo are gone for good, or whether it’s allowing the aroma to linger just enough for the name and logo to be re-embraced if/when the team ever decides that the positives of doing so would outweigh the blowback.
So which is it? Are the old name and logo gone for good? Or will they periodically make appearances, followed by an organizational declaration of “oops,” until the team decides the time is right to bring them back?
It’s a point we made last March. With the NFL taking two Christmas games from over-the-air broadcast networks and sending them to a new streaming partner, it’s worth mentioning again.
At some point, as the NFL pivots from broadcast to streaming — and as fans need more and more services to watch all games — it’s going to face a potential antitrust issue.
The problem traces to the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. That’s the federal law that allows the NFL to sell its TV rights as a group, even though the NFL consists of unique businesses that should be selling their TV rights separately.
Three years ago, an item in the University of Iowa’s Journal of Corporation Law looked at the league’s looming legal challenges in an era of streaming. An argument could be made that the antitrust exemption in the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 doesn’t apply to games available on streaming platforms.
Of course, someone would first have to raise the issue. If any of the traditional broadcast networks ever filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL over streaming deals not being done on a team-by-team basis, that network would never have to worry about ever having a contract with the NFL again. A class action on behalf of consumers would potentially be possible, under the argument that the league is misusing its exemption to sell league-wide packages to streaming companies and keeping them off of free, over-the-air TV. (The argument would be that, if the NFL’s individual teams had to do their own streaming deals, the league would be far more likely to keep all packages on traditional TV networks.)
The league surely is sensitive to the possibility of a legal challenge. Whenever the league adds a new package that isn’t on a broadcast network, the league ensures that the game will be available on over-the-air TV in the markets of the teams playing in those games. Indeed, during the recent conference call regarding this year’s schedule, the league specifically made the point that 100 percent of all games will be available in the local markets of the teams playing in those games.
We’re not saying what should happen. We’re just pointing out what could happen. The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 has potential limits, especially since it was passed more than a half-century before streaming even existed.
The NFL will need to address the issue at some point, either by getting from Congress an expanded exemption that covers streaming — or by waiting for a lawsuit and trying to make the case that the law should cover streaming, especially since 100 percent of all games are always available in the local markets of the teams playing in those games.
We love the fact that Marvin Harrison Jr. marches to the beat of his own drum. There are, however, limits on Harrison doing things his own way.
One such set of limitations potentially comes from contractual commitments he has previously made.
Accounts of a conflict between Harrison and Fanatics emerged after the draft, sparked by Harrison’s failure to sign the NFLPA licensing deal that would allow Fanatics to sell his Cardinals jersey. It came to a head this weekend, with Harrison not going to the NFLPA Rookie Premiere and, more significantly, Fanatics suing Harrison for breach of contract.
After news of the existence of the lawsuit surfaced, sports attorney Darren Heitner posted on his website a copy of the complaint filed in the Supreme Court of New York for New York County. The version of the complaint posted by Heitner has widespread redactions that, frankly, seem random at times. It makes it hard to perform a full analysis of the complaint.
Inevitably, an unredacted copy of the complaint will emerge. After all, these documents are filed in open court and are available for public scrutiny.
For now, here’s our effort to make sense of the information in the redacted complaint.
The lawsuit alleges that, in May 2023, Harrison “entered into a fully binding and enforceable contract to provide Fanatics” with certain things. Those things are all redacted. So is the information as to what Harrison would get in return.
The lawsuit also claims that Harrison “has recently and publicly asserted that his binding Agreement with Fanatics does not exist, and he has refused to fulfill any of his obligations thereunder.”
Fanatics contends that the agreement “was formed after extensive negotiations,” which happened with assistance and representation by his father, Hall of Fame receiver Marvin Harrison Sr.
The complaint says a “Binding Term Sheet” exists. The complaint includes four bullet points regarding its content. All information is redacted.
The problem has arisen from Harrison Jr.'s alleged claim that no agreement exists. He allegedly told Fanatics he has received offers from other trading card companies, and he allegedly has asked Fanatics to meet or exceed the offers.
Here’s the key paragraph that speaks to the failure to sign the NFLPA licensing agreement: “Harrison Jr. has even tried to leverage Fanatics by refusing to cooperate with Fanatics’ business partners.”
The case focuses on Fanatics’ autographed trading-card business. Fanatics makes several boasts regarding the success of this aspect of its broader operations before claiming that “no athlete — other than Harrison Jr. — has ever repudiated their deal with Fanatics,” that “no athlete has ever risked hurting the fans to try to leverage more money from Fanatics — other than Harrison Jr.,” and that “despite years of contracting with hundreds of top athletes, Fanatics has never had to resort to the courts to enforce its rights against an athlete.”
The problem allegedly arose just before the 2024 draft. Harrison Sr. allegedly asked for a copy of the “Binding Term Sheet.” Fanatics provided it. Harrison Sr. replied by allegedly saying “‘we’ do not have a deal with Fanatics.”
The lawsuit also contends that Harrison’s camp leaked their position to Pat McAfee; specifically, that Harrison never had a trading-card deal with Fanatics. McAfee then shared the information on his ESPN show, and Harrison Jr. reposted the clip on X.
“All of this was an attempt to mislead the public,” Fanatics contends in the lawsuit. “Harrison Jr. did accept Fanatics’ offer — he entered into and signed the Binding Term Sheet.”
Although the corresponding portion of the complaint posted by Heitner seems to be redacted, ESPN.com’s article about the situation explains that the lawsuit contends that “Harrison is selling signed memorabilia through The Official Harrison Collection’s website,” with signed photos from $99.99 to $149, a signed jersey for $299.99, and a signed helmet for as much as $549.99. The website also allegedly says that “Cardinals memorabilia [is] coming soon,” and that it is “the ONLY website to purchase signed Harrison memorabilia.”
The lawsuit contains four counts: (1) breach of the Fanatics contract; (2) anticipatory repudiation of the Fanatics contract; (3) tortious interference with Fanatics’ contract by breaching the deal through the Harrison Collection; and (4) declaratory judgment.
Fanatics seeks an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages (which are available in a tortious interference claim), a declaration that the “Binding Term Sheet” is a binding and enforceable contract, and a court order requiring Harrison Jr. to comply with the contract.
Here are a couple of other thoughts on the matter, beyond the content of the complaint.
First, much of the case will come down to whether the “Binding Term Sheet” constitutes a valid and enforceable contract. Harrison Jr. will apparently argue that the Binding Term Sheet isn’t good enough to create a binding contract. If, however, the Binding Term Sheet contains all material terms of a contract, it doesn’t matter if the “term sheet” wasn’t followed by a full-blown contract.
Strengthening the argument should (or at least could) be the fact that the two sides performed the terms of the Binding Term Sheet as written, for nearly a year. That tends to show that both sides believed the contract existed and acted accordingly.
Second, it’s odd that Harrison Jr. is the defendant named in the tortious interference claim. If a breach happens under circumstances like this, one party to the contract commits it — and some outside party prompts it. The Official Harrison Collection LLC seems to be the more appropriate defendant for a tortious interference claim.
Harrison Sr. would also be a potential tortious interference defendant, if Fanatics decides to amend the complaint and blame Harrison Sr. for the breach. (Given his involvement in the management of his son’s business affairs, it hardly seems like a stretch to think Harrison Jr. ditched the alleged deal with Fanatics at the direction of Harrison Sr.
Plenty of cases settle. It’s hardly ideal for Fanatics to be suing a player who will become a high-profile member of the biggest sport with which Fanatics does business. Fanatics surely wouldn’t be doing this if it didn’t feel strongly about its position.
We’ll follow all developments. Hopefully with access to documents that aren’t redacted to exclude content that doesn’t seem to be confidential or controversial.
The first unofficial weekend of summer is coming. This weekend, here’s a chance to get some reading material for the relaxation time to come.
I’ll be giving away one or two or maybe three signed, personalized copies of Father of Mine this weekend. It’s a mob story set in 1973, inspired by true events from my hometown of Wheeling, West Virginia.
To enter, send an email to florio@profootballtalk.com with this subject line: “Father of Mine 5/17/24 Giveaway.” Include an address and preferred inscription. If you win, I’ll let you know by Monday.
The goal in offering free, signed, personalized copies is to get you to consider buying it. The ebook is only $3.99 (which is a massive bargain for a 400-page book), and the print version can be had for $14.99.
It doesn’t suck, despite the fact that I wrote it. And the sequel is coming, possibly in time for the final unofficial weekend of summer.
After writing some 20 million words here since 2001, I decided four years ago to start cranking out words that might have a little more shelf-life than a string of blurbs that covers an ever-changing NFL news cycle. From Playmakers to Father of Mine to On Our Way Home to the Father of Mine sequel to an upcoming prison escape tale to a murder mystery unfolding 17 years after the case was solved to a western that my dad would have loved to a cautionary tale about pro football and gambling (which might get accelerated, given recent events), there will be plenty for you to buy. Or not buy.
All I can do is make it available. If you like reading generally and like specifically the writing you see in this destination, it makes sense to give it a try.
Especially when it’s only $3.99 to get started with Father of Mine.
As a rookie in 2016, quarterback Jacoby Brissett played for the Patriots under Bill Belichick. In 2024, Brissett is back with the Patriots for a second time, playing for Jerod Mayo. The vibe is different.
Brissett says he appreciates how much Mayo wants the players themselves to run the team and take ownership of
“He brings a lot of good energy,” Brissett said, via Mike Reiss of ESPN. “The cool thing is you can tell he’s trying to make the players on the team run the team. Obviously, he’s the head coach and he sets the standard, but he definitely puts a lot of responsibility on us players. I like it.”
In addition to Belichick and Mayo, Brissett has played for head coaches Chuck Pagano and Frank Reich in Indianapolis, Brian Flores in Miami, Kevin Stefanski in Cleveland and Ron Rivera in Washington. Now Brissett is a 31-year-old veteran playing for a 38-year-old first-year coach in Mayo, and he may more than ever see his coach as a peer — while his coach sees him as a veteran who can be responsible for the player-led team he wants to build.
After bursting onto the scene with a rookie of the year-winning season in 2020, defensive end Chase Young hasn’t been the same player since. But one of his new teammates expects big things of him in 2024.
Saints defensive end Cameron Jordan says the arrival of Young should be seen as exciting in New Orleans, where Young looks like he’ll be a good fit for what the Saints needed to add on defense.
“I think Chase Young is going to be great for our defense,” Jordan said on NFL Network. “We already got Carl Granderson, who’s stellar these last couple of years. I think with growth him being on the opposite side when he gets the right health, physically. He’s going to be another piece we can add on. At some point in my mind, I’m spinning like it’s going to be me, Chase and Carl Granderson on the field at the same time on a crucial third down and I’m probably going to have to go in the middle. I don’t care. Whatever it takes. I’ll line up and be that Za’Darius Smith over the middle roaming and trying to get active. I think it adds another weapon to our defense.”
The first question for Young is whether he’ll be 100 percent healthy for the start of the season after having neck surgery in March. If he is healthy, Jordan believes he’s ready for a rebound season in which he finally regains his rookie form.
The fight between Fanatics and Marvin Harrison Jr. has gone to the next level.
Via Adam Schefter of ESPN.com, Fanatics has filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Harrison in New York state court.
Harrison’s camp claims it has no contract with Fanatics. The lawsuit alleges that the two sides have a signed autograph agreement, dating back to May 2023.
There are plenty of potential defenses to a case based on the alleged existence of a contract. Regardless of how it plays out, this is the first known legal dispute between a player and the company that aspires to be a one-stop shop for sports fans — apparel memorabilia, trading cards, wagering, and media.
Harrison has not yet signed the NFLPA licensing deal, which prevents Fanatics from selling his Cardinals jersey. It has been reported that the refusal to sign the licensing agreement is part of Harrison’s effort to re-do the Fanatics deal.
That reporting, if true, implies that there is a deal between Harrison and Fanatics.
Without seeing the actual complaint, it’s unclear whether Fanatics wants financial recovery, an order forcing Harrison to comply, or both.
He still doesn’t have an NFLPA licensing deal. Perhaps not coincidentally, Cardinals receiver Marvin Harrison Jr. did not accept an invitation to attend the 2024 NFLPA Rookie Premiere in L.A.
He was indeed on the invitation list. He was not on the official list of expected attendees.
The list carried a caveat: “Subject to change.” We’re told that the only change was the decision of Chiefs receiver Xavier Worthy to not attend, due to “personal matter.” (Worthy recently had his car stolen in Kansas City, which might or might not have been the personal matter that kept him from going.)
Harrison’s jersey isn’t available to be purchased, due to the lack of a licensing deal with the union. He reportedly has an existing deal with Fanatics, which sells the jerseys online. Apparently, his refusal to sign the NFLPA deal arises from a desire to re-do the Fanatics deal.
Attending the Rookie Premiere are: Colts receiver Adonai Mitchell, Broncos running back Audric Estime, Rams running back Blake Corum, Broncos quarterback Bo Nix, Jets running back Braelon Allen, Chargers receiver Brenden Rice, Jaguars receiver Brian Thomas Jr., Raiders tight end Brock Bowers, Buccaneers running back Bucky Irving, Bears quarterback Caleb Williams, Vikings edge rusher Dallas Turner, Patriots quarterback Drake Maye, Buccaneers receiver Jalen McMillan, Patriots receiver Ja’Lynn Polk, Panthers tight end Ja’Tavion Sanders, Commanders quarterback Jayden Daniels, Dolphins running back Jaylen Wright, Bengals receiver Jermaine Burton, Vikings quarterback J.J. McCarthy, Patriots quarterback Joe Milton III, Panthers running back Jonathan Brooks, Jets quarterback Jordan Travis, Bills receiver Keon Coleman, Chargers receiver Ladd McConkey, Colts edge rusher Laiati Latu, Commanders receiver Luke McCaffrey, Jets receiver Malachi Corley, Giants receiver Malik Nabers, Packers running back Marshawn Lloyd, Falcons quarterback Michael Penix Jr., Packers quarterback Michael Pratt, 49ers receiver Ricky Pearsall, Steelers receiver Roman Wilson, Bears receiver Rome Odunze, Saints quarterback Spencer Rattler, Cardinals running back Trey Benson, Broncos receiver Troy Franklin, Eagles running back Will Shipley, and Panthers receiver Xavier Leggette.
If familiarity breeds contempt, there will be plenty of contempt on Thursday nights this year. And one Friday.
The 16 Amazon games for 2024 include 12 games that pit two teams from the same division against each other.
That can be a good thing, because plenty of those rivalries produce close games, with the supposedly lesser team having a shot at winning since they know that opponent well. Later in the year, it can be a bad thing if one or both teams aren’t in the playoff hunt.
Still, flexing is now available, allowing the NFL to get out of a bad game late in the year. Based on last year, however, flexing might not be needed because people tune in to the games regardless of the opponents and/or the health of the quarterbacks.
The non-division games happen Week 7 (Broncos at Saints), Week 8 (Vikings at Rams), Week 9 (Texans at Jets), and Week 17 (Seahawks at Bears).
The Amazon slate consists of 15 Thursday games and one Friday game — Raiders at Chiefs on the day after Thanksgiving, at 3:00 p.m. ET.
Broncos rookie quarterback Bo Nix knows head coach Sean Payton’s track record of developing winning offenses, and he knows he was drafted to continue that legacy.
"[Payton] has built a pedigree; when he talks, you listen,’' Nix said, via ESPN. “It can be a lot; I think I’m being taught really well. [They’re] doing a good job of narrowing everything down, making it simple so I can just get up there and process and play fast.’'
Also sharing his experience with Nix is retired quarterback Philip Rivers, who like Nix is an Alabama native and has worked with Nix this offseason.
“He has a lot of knowledge, a lot more than I have,’' Nix said of Rivers. “Just his willingness was impressive; he didn’t have to do that.’'
Nix is soaking up all the knowledge he can, as he embarks on an NFL career with a franchise that hasn’t found a consistent quarterback since Peyton Manning retired, but hopes to have drafted a winner in the first round this year.