Daily Inspiration Quote by John Paul Stevens

Beneath the neutral, almost managerial phrasing is a Justice quietly detonating a convenient legal fiction: the idea that the NFL can present itself as one seamless “single entity” when it wants efficiency, then splinter into 32 rival businesses when it wants plausible deniability. Stevens is doing what he often did best as a judge: draining the glamour out of a powerful institution by describing it in the plain language of incentives. “Common interests” nods to the league’s collective mythology - shared brand, shared spectacle, shared cachet - then pivots on “still separate, profit-making entities,” a blunt reminder that corporate unity is often just a costume worn for court.

The key move is in the last clause: “not necessarily aligned.” It’s cautious enough to be judicial, but sharp enough to matter. Stevens isn’t claiming teams are always at war; he’s insisting that misalignment is structurally baked in. In the world of trademark licensing, a Cowboys logo and a Jaguars logo don’t merely decorate the same sport; they compete for shelf space, royalties, and cultural oxygen. That competitive reality triggers the law’s suspicion of coordinated restraint - the antitrust concern that joint licensing can function like price-fixing if the “separate” firms act like one seller.

Contextually, this lives in the Supreme Court’s long-running effort to decide when collaboration is legitimate cooperation and when it’s cartel behavior. Stevens’ intent is to pin the NFL to its economic truth: if you’re independent enough to chase your own profits, you’re independent enough to be accountable when you coordinate to control a market.