Practically speaking, no. The licensing party would not allow the other to use their name or logo on product they disagreed on. For example the NBA probably would not allow their logo to be used on “Super Cheapo shoes” etc etc. The agreements would be limited to certain products and require certain co branding.
The deal would be worth nothing unless they negotiated with the original licensee.
Most likely their contract with the organization (NFL etc) would stipulate that they can’t sell it, since the organization wants to control the public image. They wouldn’t be happy if Nike sold the rights to “Neo-nazi’s unlimited”, and therefore they would contractually make sure that they can prevent that.
It depends on the terms of the contract between the league and the rights purchaser. In the software world at least, a lot of contracts will only grant a non-transferrable license (or transferrable only under certain circumstances). I don’t know that it would benefit the NFL to allow Nike to resell the rights; if the license is more valuable than what Nike paid for it, the NFL probably wouldn’t be too keen on Nike reaping that benefit.
This is a separate issue from Nike purchasing a rights license and then subcontracting to other entities exploit the license, i.e., Nike can likely subcontract with a Chinese company to manufacture Nike-branded NFL gear (provided the rights license doesn’t limit subcontracting, which I would think unlikely in this scenario but you see sometimes in professional services agreements).
Comments
yes, this is exactly what happens.
Nike owns the MLB rights but fanatics makes the jerseys and designs.
in NHL until last year Adidas owned the rights but the jerseys were produced by SP authentique in Quebec.
I think its quite rare for the rights holder to actually produce the jersey’s in their own factories.
Practically speaking, no. The licensing party would not allow the other to use their name or logo on product they disagreed on. For example the NBA probably would not allow their logo to be used on “Super Cheapo shoes” etc etc. The agreements would be limited to certain products and require certain co branding.
The deal would be worth nothing unless they negotiated with the original licensee.
Most likely their contract with the organization (NFL etc) would stipulate that they can’t sell it, since the organization wants to control the public image. They wouldn’t be happy if Nike sold the rights to “Neo-nazi’s unlimited”, and therefore they would contractually make sure that they can prevent that.
It depends on the terms of the contract between the league and the rights purchaser. In the software world at least, a lot of contracts will only grant a non-transferrable license (or transferrable only under certain circumstances). I don’t know that it would benefit the NFL to allow Nike to resell the rights; if the license is more valuable than what Nike paid for it, the NFL probably wouldn’t be too keen on Nike reaping that benefit.
This is a separate issue from Nike purchasing a rights license and then subcontracting to other entities exploit the license, i.e., Nike can likely subcontract with a Chinese company to manufacture Nike-branded NFL gear (provided the rights license doesn’t limit subcontracting, which I would think unlikely in this scenario but you see sometimes in professional services agreements).