In 2004, EA struck a deal with the NFL, the Arena Football League, and the NCAA to become the only game publisher allowed to use the likeness of teams, players, and stadiums. Since then, EA has been in control of the interactive football market, but is that illegal? Two gamers think so, as they are filing a class action lawsuit against EA for anticompetitive practices.

"Electronic Arts has the ability to raise the price of its interactive football software substantially for a significant period of time without consumers substituting another product.... EA now has a monopoly on the market for interactive football software." A monopoly? No one is keeping a competitor from releasing a football game; they simply can't use players, stadiums, or teams affiliated with any of the organizations EA has agreements with. Ars Technica contacted one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, Stuart M. Paynter, and his response was blunt. "We don't believe there is a market for interactive football that is not based on real players and teams."

Here's how we got into the current situation. Before the EA signed its deal with the NFL in 2004, Take Two Interactive and Sega partnered to release a football game, NFL 2K5.

The game did many things that its competition didn't, such as offer an extensive online

league system, and was released to critical acclaim, as well as strong sales.

The price point, $19.99, couldn't have hurt. EA's Madden series

was facing some stiff competition in both quality and pricing, and

three months after release of the company's yearly Madden product, the

price was dropped from $49.95 to $29.95. It was the last time the football video game market saw competitive pricing.

Was EA the one responsible for anticompetitive practices? In an interview with GameTap, Peter Moore claims it was the NFL that sought the deal. "To be clear, the NFL was the entity that wanted the exclusive relationship. EA bid, as did a number of other companies, for the exclusive relationship," Moore explained. "It wasn't on our behest that this went exclusive... We bid and we were very fortunate and lucky and delighted to be the winning licensee."

Paynter isn't buying that argument. "First off, it takes two to tango, it takes two to sign a contract," he told Ars. "From our perspective, they don't just have a contract with the NFL, but the players union... Arena Football, and NCAA Football. No one forced EA to sign that entire series." The NFL deal is a small part of what gives EA a monopoly on interactive football. EA aggressively went after what can only be described as a suite of exclusivity deals, and this move seems specifically designed to make sure no one else could create a compelling or realistic football title.

The suit is asking for, among other things, "restitution and/or Damages to class members for the purchase of the software." EA has released multiple, high-selling football titles since this deal was signed. Assigning a dollar amount to these damages could be complicated. "The general matter under antitrust is the amount of the overcharge; the price it would have sold under in the competitive market," Paynter explained. Even if EA would have only dropped its price $5 for each football title sold, the damages awarded could be extensive.

EA told Ars it can't comment on matters of pending litigation. No matter the outcome of this class action complaint, it's clear that less choice is never a good thing for consumers. This is all old news for fans of football games, however. What should be even more disturbing is the looming threat of EA purchasing Take-Two. If that goes through, EA will control almost every sports franchise—including Take Two's All Pro Football 2K8—in the world of gaming. Monopoly indeed.

Further reading: