Counter point to that. Name one company in any other industry that lets another private company appropriate their brand for profit without having any sort of financial arrangement?How we’ve found the time to be getting involved in petty shit like this is beyond me. There are so many more important matters at the club that require addressing (example, the ticketing system and providing clarity for how it’ll work this season) and here we are crying over the name of the team in a computer game that’s been around for twenty years.
I seriously fecking hate some of the people at this club.
It’s football manager. Very very different to fifa/pro evo etc. SI games and EA are worlds apart when it comes to revenue. It’s literally the name of the team spelt out and that’s it. There’s no kits, there’s no logos, there’s no player faces etc. It is literally just the use of the word ‘Manchester United’.Counter point to that. Name one company in any other industry that lets another private company appropriate their brand for profit without having any sort of financial arrangement?
Why should Konami keep paying United money if other game developers go ahead and use their image rights for free?
Football Manager shifts over 30m copies per year. That’s nearly a billion in revenue.It’s football manager. Very very different to fifa/pro evo etc. SI games and EA are worlds apart when it comes to revenue. It’s literally the name of the team spelt out and that’s it. There’s no kits, there’s no logos, there’s no player faces etc. It is literally just the use of the word ‘Manchester United’.
By this logic, nobody here on redcafe should be allowed to use the word Manchester United without paying United to be able to do so.
Where do we even draw the line? Would youtubers have to stop using Uniteds name or wearing United merchandise on their videos because they’re making money whilst wearing United gear without giving United a cut. It’s a really fecking daft road to go down.
Probably required by our legal team/Konami legal team based on the below suggestion.I've no idea why the club bothered, even FM developers have said they still feel like it was all much ado about nothing.
My thoughts as well.It’s likely going to be part of an ongoing agreement with another developer that we give them sole use of our name and trademarks within that format. So this is probably some preliminary work required before the deal with them can be ratified
That means we'll be renamed on Fifa like Juve/Roma.Probably required by our legal team/Konami legal team based on the below suggestion.
My thoughts as well.
Found the time? It's not Gary in accounting running around doing all this stuff whilst trying to conduct transfers business. We've just hired an external law firm and told them get on with it. It's not like it's impacting anything else.How we’ve found the time to be getting involved in petty shit like this is beyond me. There are so many more important matters at the club that require addressing (example, the ticketing system and providing clarity for how it’ll work this season) and here we are crying over the name of the team in a computer game that’s been around for twenty years.
I seriously fecking hate some of the people at this club.
According to the internet EA’s revenue is over 5 billion. SI games is less than 80 million. They are absolutely worlds apart.Football Manager shifts over 30m copies per year. That’s nearly a billion in revenue.
And no, the words “Manchester United” in a conversation online when talking about Manchester United is not the same as a private company producing a game which benefits from authenticity and therefore profits from using “Manchester United” despite no agreement in place to do so.
Yeah I didn’t mean it literally. It was more an overall dig at the shambolic running of the club in other areas. This has brought unnecessary bad press as well . What do they think this is going to achieve? Si aren’t EA, they’re not gonna folk out millions upon millions to use the names of clubs.Found the time? It's not Gary in accounting running around doing all this stuff whilst trying to conduct transfers business. We've just hired an external law firm and told them get on with it. It's not like it's impacting anything else.
Do you think the publishers that United do deals with for millions are happy to accept that “indie” publisher Sega can use their name for free because their only selling 30 million copies per year?According to the internet EA’s revenue is over 5 billion. SI games is less than 80 million. They are absolutely worlds apart.
As I touched on in my first post I completely understand expecting EA to pay for rights. They use logos, faces, kits, old Trafford. Again I’ll repeat Football Manager literally uses just words. The only people being hurt would be football fans. Man United fans who pump endless amounts of money into United. If you start making SI pay you for purely using your name you’re going down a very dangerous path.
Miles Jacobson said FM21 just sold its 2 millionth copy a few days ago. A little less than 30 million!Do you think the publishers that United do deals with for millions are happy to accept that “indie” publisher Sega can use their name for free because their only selling 30 million copies per year?
I think the 30 million copies is the amount sold over the entire lifetime of FM, so over 25+ years. They average around 1-2 million a year, across all platformsDo you think the publishers that United do deals with for millions are happy to accept that “indie” publisher Sega can use their name for free because their only selling 30 million copies per year?
I’ll repeat . Their revenue is less than 80 million. There is feck all to really gain from preventing SI using the words Manchester United on a video game. United are barking way up the wrong tree here. Anyway I notice two people have pointed out you’ve got it completely wrong with your figures.Do you think the publishers that United do deals with for millions are happy to accept that “indie” publisher Sega can use their name for free because their only selling 30 million copies per year?
Yeah well, on the other hand, if game producers have to pay literally thousands of teams for the right to represent them in a simulation game, there isn't going to be any simulation games is there. For my part I favour seeing it in the way that the fact of football clubs existence is in the public sphere, and it is not in any way reasonable that they should be able to prevent things like this.Counter point to that. Name one company in any other industry that lets another private company appropriate their brand for profit without having any sort of financial arrangement?
Why should Konami keep paying United money if other game developers go ahead and use their image rights for free?
How would that work though? Should we have a management game approved by United, Chelsea and Bayern Munich, and a different one approved by PSG, Barcelona and Leeds, and a third one approved by Liverpool, Real Madrid and Juventus? How are you going to make a management game that accurately depicts thousands of teams around the globe, for the general benefit of interest in the game? They're not even using the logo, or the full name of the team. Would anyone be better off if they dropped the premier league from the game, or referred to the team by some nickname or acronym? Would we be better off if instead they had to pay large sums to clubs or leagues, reducing the resources they had available to invest in game development, and/or the price of the finished game? How does it hurt Manchester United that someone else is making use of a commercial opportunity that Manchester United cannot make use of, and which consequently is of no value to them?Do you think the publishers that United do deals with for millions are happy to accept that “indie” publisher Sega can use their name for free because their only selling 30 million copies per year?
One could even say... Unitdebt. I'll see myself out.If I was FM owners I would call the club Dividends United or Debt United.
What are Roma called? I know about Juve but didnt realize Roma were in the same boat.That means we'll be renamed on Fifa like Juve/Roma.
Simply Roma FC with an EA designed logo and kitWhat are Roma called? I know about Juve but didnt realize Roma were in the same boat.
Ah right, cheers.Simply Roma FC with an EA designed logo and kit
surelyIf I was FM owners I would call the club Dividends United or Debt United.
Even on FM they are called Zebras. FM also don't have license to use Brazilian league names, German national team.Isn't this similar to Juventus and FIFA?
Ole had done nothing to FM and should therefore not be humiliated by it. Glazers OUT FC would be nice as well.surely
Manchester Comprehensive School, as we are managed by a PE teacher apparently.
No, it doesn't. But it also isn't that straightforward that including them in a simulation game amounts to using their name in a for profit business endeavor in a way that implies compensation.This stuff isn't complicated. Manchester United is a trademark. If you want to use their name in a for profit business endeavor then you need to pay for the privilege. It doesn't matter if you sell 1 copy or 1 billion copies.
So why is everyone upset at United for this? FM profited using a trademark without paying for it, we took legal action, they changed it. Pretty standard stuff, no?Even on FM they are called Zebras. FM also don't have license to use Brazilian league names, German national team.
Yeah, people love to moan. There are many teams where their names are modified on FM. It's standard stuff, same with few staff from Netherlands.So why is everyone upset at United for this? FM profited using a trademark without paying for it, we took legal action, they changed it. Pretty standard stuff, no?
This stuff isn't complicated. Manchester United is a trademark. If you want to use their name in a for profit business endeavor then you need to pay for the privilege. It doesn't matter if you sell 1 copy or 1 billion copies.
Exactly.So why is everyone upset at United for this? FM profited using a trademark without paying for it, we took legal action, they changed it. Pretty standard stuff, no?
Just think it's a bit laughable of the club after nearly 30 years of this being OK (and pretty much every club in the world being OK with it) we now decide to sue. guess its the Konami stuff, even though pes has died on its arse.Exactly.
It’s so weird that people are taking the position “Oh it’s this tiny unknown game that only sells millions every year and has a cult like following”.
It’s literally our business model to sell the rights to our name and yet we are expected to give it away for free in this specific instance? What does that say to all the companies who are spending millions to associate themselves with us?
That’s the point. There will have been a catalyst and it’s probably the likes of Konami or another partner going “hang on we are giving you how much while they get to use your name for free?”Just think it's a bit laughable of the club after nearly 30 years of this being OK (and pretty much every club in the world being OK with it) we now decide to sue. guess its the Konami stuff, even though pes has died on its arse.
Its also quite funny that out of fm, fifa and pes we went for the tie in with by far the shittest one.
I think it's rather weirder that you and others treat a specific legal position on image rights as if it was pre-ordained, natural and indisputable, despite the fact that a) United has accepted this use from the same company for several decades and b) the obvious fact that making management simulations with a global scope would be either impossible or prohibitively expensive if the same position was taken by all clubs and leagues.Exactly.
It’s so weird that people are taking the position “Oh it’s this tiny unknown game that only sells millions every year and has a cult like following”.
It’s literally our business model to sell the rights to our name and yet we are expected to give it away for free in this specific instance? What does that say to all the companies who are spending millions to associate themselves with us?
SI games and EA are worlds apart when it comes to revenue.It’s football manager. Very very different to fifa/pro evo etc. SI games and EA are worlds apart when it comes to revenue. It’s literally the name of the team spelt out and that’s it. There’s no kits, there’s no logos, there’s no player faces etc. It is literally just the use of the word ‘Manchester United’.
By this logic, nobody here on redcafe should be allowed to use the word Manchester United without paying United to be able to do so.
Where do we even draw the line? Would youtubers have to stop using Uniteds name or wearing United merchandise on their videos because they’re making money whilst wearing United gear without giving United a cut. It’s a really fecking daft road to go down.
Do you feel like you should be able to print and sell Manchester United shirts with logos and names and make a profit?Becoming like Disney, pathetic.
