Revenue Sharing

[saden1]

Originally Posted by LongTimeSkinsFan

The term is price gouging and you are using it out of context. The source of your definition provides a more valid example of price gouging as follows:

Price gouging may be charged when a supplier of essential goods or services sharply raises the prices asked in anticipation of or during a civil emergency, or when it cancels or dishonors contracts in order to take advantage of an increase in prices related to such an emergency. The model case is a retailer who increases the price of existing stocks of milk and bread when a hurricane is imminent. -Wikipedia

Price gouging could not be charged against the NFL teams because (1) the goods or services they provide would not be considered essential and (2) the price increase would not be initiated in anticipation of or during a civil emergency.

As far as the NFLs pricing strategy goes with their products like hats, shirts, etc., they can set price levels as high as they want. The demand on such goods is elastic to begin with since there are enough look-alikes to offer competition in the marketplace. As an example, my wife probably would have had to pay $125 or so for an official Clinton Portis jersey, but the one she picked up at Wal-Mart a couple of years ago for $20 suits me just fine. BTW, you wanna talk REAL anti-competitive practices, do a case study of Wal-Mart!

Excuse my misspelling of the word, thanks for pointing that out. I must also point out that you're are in correct in your assessment. If your read further down the article you'll notices that it states:

The term is not in widespread use in economic theory but is sometimes used to refer to practices of a coercive monopoly which raises prices above the market rate that would otherwise prevail in a competitive environment.

Since the NFL is a monopoly it [can] indeed engaged in price gouging and a determined individual can successfully sue them.

edit: added [can]