Chad Johnson's name change (1 Viewer)

[GregR_2]

I agree that this screams of posturing in order to keep the name change from happening. While I'm not a fan of the name change per se, I do think Johnson is being railroaded here with some "creative" accounting as to the real impact of this move. Let's think about this logically, when a player gets traded does Reebok demand compensation from the league and the player? Does the NFL owe money to Reebok for all those Jason Taylor Dolphins jerseys and Brett Favre Packers jerseys? It's just silly.

Jason - please read my post above. There is an agreement in place...that agreement does not include trades or other instances in which the player has no control.I do think the 100,000 units is highly questionable though.

That's such a strange agreement. Isn't it the case that the players don't individually make money from their individual jerseys being sold, but instead the NLFPA gets a percentage of total merchandising and splits it up? If that's the case I could see the player's association having to pay replacement costs, but not the individual player.

The player is the one who decided to change his number or name (ETA at a late date when the merchandise has already been created, not the NFLPA. Why should they be responsible for the cost incurred by that individual player's decision?

 

[Phurfur]

I think CJ better worry about playing football. If his season continues like in week 1 no one will want either jersey.

 

[GregR_2]

I think CJ better worry about playing football. If his season continues like in week 1 no one will want either jersey.

After his off-season, I don't know why anyone in Cincinnati would want his jersey. I'm not even sure I'd want him on my team if I were them.

 

[IM666]

There have been some very good points in this thread. Regardless of whether of not Chad should have changed his name, and regardless of how he plays, I think the NFL is setting themselves up for problems down the road.

I wonder if women in the WNBA (that is still around right?) have to buy all their jerseys back if they get married. I cannot imagine the scrutiny the league would face if they tried this when a player changes his name for religious reasons.

I get the fact that a player is not responsible for being traded. But, there are other perfectly reasonable scenarios that would require the name on the back of the jersey to change. Is this a precedence the league really wants to set?

I would love to see Chad marry a woman that changed her name to “Wanda Ocho Cinco” and decide to adopt her last name.

I am also curious just how many “Ocho Cinco” custom jerseys have been sold by the NFL.com shop. I wonder if it is more than an authentic “Chad Johnson” jersey at this point in time.

 

[kingmalaki]

So Reebock basically wants other companies/jersey makers to be the ones to profit from "Ocho Cinco" jerseys?Nike rules for a reason.........

Reebok has the exclusive rights to NFL jerseys. Nike has zero NFL apparel rights, and would never bootleg product...not only because it's illegal, but also because they desperately want the NFL onfield rights in 2012.

I wasn't referring to Nike making bootleg jerseys. But someone will make a bootleg jersey. I don't see Nike not wanting to market the Ocho Cinco jersey. Then again, I can see if the NFL is pulling Reebok's strings........

 

[davearm]

It isn't preventing Chad Johnson from legally changing his name. It's stopping him from changing HIS JERSEY unless he's willing to pay the resulting costs of it since he's the one who caused it to need to be changed.

So the NFL can compel someone to wear a name on their jersey which is not their name? And make them pay $$$ if they don't wish to do so?LOL

No. US laws and whatever contract Chad signed where he gave power to someone else to market merchandise with his name is what can compel him.

Exactly.As has been said, we're talking about a multi-billion dollar industry, and the players are getting a large share of that pie. Reebok pays out a humongous licensing fee to the NFL, and one thing they get in exchange is protection from being the ones left holding the bag with a bunch of dead stock when one day a guy decides he wants to change his number (or name). Pretty simple, really.

 

[gump]

So Reebock basically wants other companies/jersey makers to be the ones to profit from "Ocho Cinco" jerseys?Nike rules for a reason.........

Reebok has the exclusive rights to NFL jerseys. Nike has zero NFL apparel rights, and would never bootleg product...not only because it's illegal, but also because they desperately want the NFL onfield rights in 2012.

I wasn't referring to Nike making bootleg jerseys. But someone will make a bootleg jersey. I don't see Nike not wanting to market the Ocho Cinco jersey. Then again, I can see if the NFL is pulling Reebok's strings........

Someone will make a bootleg..but it will be a guy in a basement somewhere...without any real distribution capabilities. And retailers won't carry them for fear that they lose the right to carry NFL licensed merch. So without any real manufacturing or any legit retail channels...it won't amount to much.Of course the NFL is "pulling Reebok's strings". The NFL is the licensor. Reebok is the licensee.

 

[randall146]

I agree that this screams of posturing in order to keep the name change from happening. While I'm not a fan of the name change per se, I do think Johnson is being railroaded here with some "creative" accounting as to the real impact of this move. Let's think about this logically, when a player gets traded does Reebok demand compensation from the league and the player? Does the NFL owe money to Reebok for all those Jason Taylor Dolphins jerseys and Brett Favre Packers jerseys? It's just silly.

Jason - please read my post above. There is an agreement in place...that agreement does not include trades or other instances in which the player has no control.I do think the 100,000 units is highly questionable though.

That's such a strange agreement. Isn't it the case that the players don't individually make money from their individual jerseys being sold, but instead the NLFPA gets a percentage of total merchandising and splits it up? If that's the case I could see the player's association having to pay replacement costs, but not the individual player.

The player is the one who decided to change his number or name (ETA at a late date when the merchandise has already been created, not the NFLPA. Why should they be responsible for the cost incurred by that individual player's decision?

Because the NFLPA as a group will get the benefit from the new licensed jerseys, not the player. The player gets only an equal share. Chad pays 100% of the name change "cost", but gets only 1/1800 (appx) of the benefit.ETA: This is according to my understanding of the labor agreement and merchandising, which could be very wrong.

 

[T Bell]

The NFL forcing Ocho Cinco to pay $4M to have his jersey changed is straight BS. When a player gets traded, the teams involved nor the player don't have to pay for all the excess jerseys that won't sell. When a player changes his name to a Muslim name, AKA Kareem, they dont gotta pay for the excess jerseys. And you know there is nothing in the contracts about name changes. The NFL should respect the name, as stupid as the whole thing is. Chad should have a legal dispute if the fine him.

If Johnson had converted to Islam there's NO WAY the NFL would have tried this stunt.

Yeah, but isn't converting to spanished the same thing?

 

[GregR_2]

The NFL forcing Ocho Cinco to pay $4M to have his jersey changed is straight BS. When a player gets traded, the teams involved nor the player don't have to pay for all the excess jerseys that won't sell. When a player changes his name to a Muslim name, AKA Kareem, they dont gotta pay for the excess jerseys. And you know there is nothing in the contracts about name changes. The NFL should respect the name, as stupid as the whole thing is. Chad should have a legal dispute if the fine him.

If Johnson had converted to Islam there's NO WAY the NFL would have tried this stunt.

Yeah, but isn't converting to spanished the same thing?

At best he converted to Spanglish.

 

[Macdaddy_2004]

Ridiculous

What happens if a player gets traded right before the season begins?

Does he have to pay for all his merchandise than to?

So basically the NFL is saying that Chad Ocho Cinco has to wear a jersey that does not reflect his real name.

Stupid.

 

[fatness]

It isn't preventing Chad Johnson from legally changing his name. It's stopping him from changing HIS JERSEY unless he's willing to pay the resulting costs of it since he's the one who caused it to need to be changed.

So the NFL can compel someone to wear a name on their jersey which is not their name? And make them pay $$$ if they don't wish to do so?LOL

No. US laws and whatever contract Chad signed where he gave power to someone else to market merchandise with his name is what can compel him.

Making a player wear a name that is not his.How much sillier can the NFL look?

 

[davearm]

RidiculousWhat happens if a player gets traded right before the season begins?Does he have to pay for all his merchandise than to?So basically the NFL is saying that Chad Ocho Cinco has to wear a jersey that does not reflect his real name.Stupid.

The trade analogy is absolutely horrible. A player has no control over that. He has 100% control over his name change though.The NFL is saying that Chad Ocho Cinco has to abide by the contractual agreements he and/or his union entered into. Those contracts apparently stipulate that the player has to cover the costs incurred by a name/number change after that season's merchandise has gone into production.So the NFL is saying COC has to wear his old jersey unless he wants to pay the costs associated with producing a new jersey. Ultimately he can wear whatever he wants, and the choice is 100% his.

 

[davearm]

It isn't preventing Chad Johnson from legally changing his name. It's stopping him from changing HIS JERSEY unless he's willing to pay the resulting costs of it since he's the one who caused it to need to be changed.

So the NFL can compel someone to wear a name on their jersey which is not their name? And make them pay $$$ if they don't wish to do so?LOL

No. US laws and whatever contract Chad signed where he gave power to someone else to market merchandise with his name is what can compel him.

Making a player wear a name that is not his.How much sillier can the NFL look?

Chad is free to wear whatever name he wants.But get it straight: if he sticks with "C Johnson" on his back, it will be because HE didn't want to foot the bill, not because the NFL made him "wear a name that is not his."

 

[[scooter]]

If he buys the jerseys, is he then allowed to sell them at a profit?

 

[NYCGangGreen]

IIRC,

London Fletcher was allowed to wear Fletcher-Baker on his jersey last year. Granted there probably weren't as many jerseys in stock to be sold, but if they allow it for a player to wear as a dedication to a lost family member, how can they legally not allow Ocho-Cinco to wear his LEGAL name on his jersey?

 

[Otis]

chad johnson is playing games with the NFL, so they are playing back. i personally think johnson should be in hollywood. he belongs in the entertainment industry.

That's where he already is.

 

[fatness]

Making a player wear a name that is not his.How much sillier can the NFL look?

Chad is free to wear whatever name he wants.But get it straight: if he sticks with "C Johnson" on his back, it will be because HE didn't want to foot the bill, not because the NFL made him "wear a name that is not his."

Get it straight. In the interest of grubbing $$$ an NFL game this weekend will feature a star player wearing a name that is not his name. That's stupid. And if he writes a check and signs it with the name on his jersey the check will bounce.

 

[davearm]

Making a player wear a name that is not his.How much sillier can the NFL look?

Chad is free to wear whatever name he wants.But get it straight: if he sticks with "C Johnson" on his back, it will be because HE didn't want to foot the bill, not because the NFL made him "wear a name that is not his."

Get it straight. In the interest of grubbing $$$ an NFL game this weekend will feature a star player wearing a name that is not his name. That's stupid. And if he writes a check and signs it with the name on his jersey the check will bounce.

LOL! Who exactly is grubbing $$$ here?Reebok's already incurred $4M in expenses (or whatever the true number is) to produce thousands of "C Johnson" replica jerseys, and surprise! They don't want to have to eat that cost when the jerseys are rendered worthless because the real jersey now says "Ocho Cinco" instead. Can you blame them?The NFL doesn't want to reimburse Reebok that money either. And why should they? They're not responsible for the change.You can be sure none of the players in the union want a bite taken out of their cut of the pie, either. That makes perfect sense as well.So who exactly is the money grubber for not volunteering to cover the $4M tab associated with Chad being Chad?

 

[AnonymousBob]

It's been known for some time OchoCinco was going to change his name...when were these jersies created?

 

[AnonymousBob]

This reaks of Chad sticking it to the NFL and their asinine policies so they're using whatever formal means possible to smack back.

 

[Marvelous]

First of all, none of us know the language of the contract between the NFLPA and Reebok and the NFL. Until those details are known all these judgements on the NFL's strongarm tactics are highly suspect. THe union and Johnson both have lawyers, if this isn't on the up and up I'm sure both teams would be easily able to counter it.Secondly which fans exactly are going to rush out and buy the OC jersey? The ones he repeatedly tried to get himself traded away from all offseason? The ones he said were tired of his shenanigans and blamed him for the underachieving team, a team so sad they rehired Henry? How many proud Bengal fans are going to go drop $85 on some publicity stunt for Johnson's ego when he's already loudly tried to split from the team? I'm hardly ever one to side with corporate giants but I think many of you are overestimating the amount of interest in buying a joke player's joke jersey from a joke team.

My tangent: I cant' believe the Redskins offered two 1st round picks for Chad Johnson.And I can't believe the Bengals turned the deal down.

 

[dwarfboy]

So Reebock basically wants other companies/jersey makers to be the ones to profit from "Ocho Cinco" jerseys?Nike rules for a reason.........

Reebok has the exclusive rights to NFL jerseys. Nike has zero NFL apparel rights, and would never bootleg product...not only because it's illegal, but also because they desperately want the NFL onfield rights in 2012.

I wasn't referring to Nike making bootleg jerseys. But someone will make a bootleg jersey. I don't see Nike not wanting to market the Ocho Cinco jersey. Then again, I can see if the NFL is pulling Reebok's strings........

You can currently purchase custom NFL jerseys. You can purchase a Bengals 85 jersey with the name Ochocinco on the back if you so desire, you just have to wait for it to be produced and mailed to you. Next year when he wears Ochocinco and Reebok produces Ochocinco 85 jereys you will still be able to order Chad Johnson 85 if you are willing to wait for it. Interestingly you cannot purchase customized college jerseys with any current or former players name and number combination, although you can purchase custom college jerseys.

 

[GregR_2]

This reaks of Chad sticking it to the NFL and their asinine policies so they're using whatever formal means possible to smack back.

Did you miss the parts where other players like Porter and Rivers who wanted to make similar last-minute changes were given the same options as Chad?

 

[gump]

A lot of you guys don't get it. I understand if some of you are lawyers and look at things a certain way...but...

This is a billion $$ business. Reebok, the NFL, and the NFLPA will crush Chad Johnson/OC like a ####in grape if he gets in the way.

End of story.

 

[gump]

How it works from the Retail side...

If a retailer brought the "Johnson" jerseys in...they're stuck with them. Reebok is not obligated in any way to offer any kind of $$ help.

In some cases, Rbk will...like the Vick deal last year. They did work with some retailers (probably just key) with some returns or markdowns. But that was a very special case.

The other 95% of the time...once the retailer receives the product...they own it.

This is another reason why Reebok/NFL/NFLPA would want to avoid situations like this.

 

[gump]

You can currently purchase custom NFL jerseys. You can purchase a Bengals 85 jersey with the name Ochocinco on the back if you so desire, you just have to wait for it to be produced and mailed to you. Next year when he wears Ochocinco and Reebok produces Ochocinco 85 jereys you will still be able to order Chad Johnson 85 if you are willing to wait for it. Interestingly you cannot purchase customized college jerseys with any current or former players name and number combination, although you can purchase custom college jerseys.

NFL.com is where you buy the customized jerseys...I'm sure they will be outlawing Ocho Cinco soon, if they haven't already...just like they did for the "Whizzinator" and "Mexico" jerseys.In college...each individual school dictates their own licensing...unlike the centralized NFL licensing body NFL Properties. They will only license a generic number for jerseys...which the school dictates. Florida for instance would not license "15" jerseys for Tebow...only "7"...without any names.

 

[Topes]

If Johnson wanted to buy out all the jerseys, a source with knowledge of the situation said it would cost him the cost to make the jersey, which is roughly 60 percent of the retail price. That would be about $48 a jersey or $4.8 million if that 100,000 number is reality.

No way it costs $48 to make a jersey.

I have a hard time believing that it costs more than $5.

If they're counting the licensing and recall costs, I still don't believe it costs $48 each to get them all back. And neither of those are what it costs to "make" a jersey.

 

[davearm]

If Johnson wanted to buy out all the jerseys, a source with knowledge of the situation said it would cost him the cost to make the jersey, which is roughly 60 percent of the retail price. That would be about $48 a jersey or $4.8 million if that 100,000 number is reality.

No way it costs $48 to make a jersey.

I have a hard time believing that it costs more than $5.

If they're counting the licensing and recall costs, I still don't believe it costs $48 each to get them all back. And neither of those are what it costs to "make" a jersey.

The exact dollar figure is pretty irrelevant.The relevant issue is, who should get the bill when "Chad being Chad" wastes money.

 

[gump]

If Johnson wanted to buy out all the jerseys, a source with knowledge of the situation said it would cost him the cost to make the jersey, which is roughly 60 percent of the retail price. That would be about $48 a jersey or $4.8 million if that 100,000 number is reality.

No way it costs $48 to make a jersey.

I have a hard time believing that it costs more than $5.

If they're counting the licensing and recall costs, I still don't believe it costs $48 each to get them all back. And neither of those are what it costs to "make" a jersey.

Depends on what jersey. The retail for a "repli-thentic" is $110. You can bet the retailer is making 55-60 pts...which puts their cost at $45-$50.ETA: As far as Reebok's actual cost...they're lucky if they are making 15% on these. That puts their actual cost at $38-$43...likely a little more.

 

[fatness]

The relevant issue is, who should get the bill when "Chad being Chad" wastes money.

The relevant issue is how completely stupid it is to require a player, during NFL games on Sundays, to wear a name that is not his name his on his jersey. That is overwhelmingly stupid. No talk about marketing agreements mitigates that stupidity. NFL games are NFL productions, and they're responsible for the stupidity.

 

[davearm]

The relevant issue is, who should get the bill when "Chad being Chad" wastes money.

The relevant issue is how completely stupid it is to require a player, during NFL games on Sundays, to wear a name that is not his name his on his jersey. That is overwhelmingly stupid. No talk about marketing agreements mitigates that stupidity. NFL games are NFL productions, and they're responsible for the stupidity.

You still haven't answered the question I have asked about who ought to pay the costs incurred. I don't think there's any dispute that Reebok's got worthless product on their hands thanks to Chad's decision to change his name, and somebody's gonna have to eat those costs. So who should it be?If my 3-year-old could grasp the context here, this would be an ideal case-study in how a person has to take responsibility for his/her actions, and how choices have consequences, etc. etc. Seems to me Chad's not too keen on accepting responsibility for the monetary consequences of this little stunt he's orchestrated.

 

[Topes]

If Johnson wanted to buy out all the jerseys, a source with knowledge of the situation said it would cost him the cost to make the jersey, which is roughly 60 percent of the retail price. That would be about $48 a jersey or $4.8 million if that 100,000 number is reality.

No way it costs $48 to make a jersey.

I have a hard time believing that it costs more than $5.

If they're counting the licensing and recall costs, I still don't believe it costs $48 each to get them all back. And neither of those are what it costs to "make" a jersey.

Depends on what jersey. The retail for a "repli-thentic" is $110. You can bet the retailer is making 55-60 pts...which puts their cost at $45-$50.ETA: As far as Reebok's actual cost...they're lucky if they are making 15% on these. That puts their actual cost at $38-$43...likely a little more.

But those costs include maybe $5 for the jersey and $5 for distribution. All the rest is licensing. The licensing portion is discounted when the jerseys are destroyed.

No way it costs $48 to make a jersey.