Cubs win lawsuit against rooftop seating

quote:

---

Personally Id give the seating away from now on.

---

I believe he would be ok to do that

quote:

---

Personally Id give the seating away from now on.

---

Yep. So this and charge a "game day premium" to everything sold up there.

quote:

---

Since it's just another business now he's no different than a sports bar hacking a livestream.

---

One would think watching it live from their privately owned rooftop is fundamentally different from a livestream bootlegged into a sports bar.

But it is Chicago.

quote:

---

Personally Id give the seating away from now on

---

People these days don’t really go to the rooftops to watch a game so the Cubs don’t really care. The $150-200/game is for the unlimited food and drink inside. The modern rooftops are also really more for groups who want to socialize in a fun spot. It’s not possible to get 10-30 tickets for your company or alumni group or just general friend group at Wrigley so you book a rooftop

The rooftops aren’t for budget fans desperate to watch the Cubs, and the Cubs wouldn’t care if they watch for free. They do however care if a business is completely freeloading on their product and commercial rights

The rooftops are essentially a sophisticated sports bar that in this one case didn’t pay in any fashion for the entertainment (labor of others) central to its very existence as a single-purpose business. The guy also infringed on Cubs trademarks in their marketing

quote:

---

Crazy to think that on your own property you can be told not to do what you want with it

---

Going to assume you don’t own your own property because no matter the jurisdiction the list of things you can’t do on it is massive

quote:

---

Wrigley Field isn't their property.

It's no different than every stadium in the world covering any opening of people being able to see inside the stadium from the outside.

---

Then let the Cubs put up a huge curtain if they think it's an issue. Are you saying the home owners are only allowed to look to the south during non-game times? And what about the flipside: are all the Cub fans in Wrigley allowed to look at their roof?

quote:

---

Then let the Cubs put up a huge curtain if they think it's an issue

---

Not ideal optics for a club in a unique location that has always strived to do right by its neighborhood (to the chagrin of worse night game lighting than a 2A football field). They could have but it’s unnecessary public escalation compared to what transpired

There are 16 rooftop buildings. The Cubs (through the Ricketts family) already own 11. The ruling essentially allows the Cubs to shut down the remaining 5 because they’re now explicitly required to have the team’s authorization. The team is not obligated to give that at any royalty price and they now have the means to kill those 5 at will. This will realistically force the liquidation of that real estate (which now has far less value to anyone else) to the team

This guy gave them the means to a perfect lawsuit. That’s why they took this to court instead of raising a curtain. Winning this battle won them all future wars

quote:

---

Are you saying the home owners are only allowed to look to the south during non-game times? And what about the flipside: are all the Cub fans in Wrigley allowed to look at their roof?

---

I don’t see anyone arguing that but for reference the lawsuit is not about where eyeballs are. It’s about the monetization of the Cubs’ commercial rights without their authorization

quote:

---

Just seams like something a pro team should lean in to rather than protest and take to court.

---

Why exactly should a pro team not protect its commercial interests, particularly when rights are being violated by a freeloader? That’s not the kind of “little guy” any team has interest in letting off the hook and the only acceptable action is to nip any appearance of a charity in the bud. Doing nothing now could also potentially make future enforcement more difficult

The team’s payroll isn’t fricking free either

In reality there’s nothing for the team to lean into. Fans and the neighborhood like the aesthetics of the rooftops but couldn’t care less who runs them. The team already owns 11 and wants to own the remaining 5. Getting the court ruling was the most effective domino to making that happen sooner. It’s essentially guaranteed now

quote:

---

Why exactly should a pro team not protect its commercial interests, particularly when rights are being violated by a freeloader? That’s not the kind of “little guy” any team has interest in letting off the hook and the only acceptable action is to nip any appearance of a charity in the bud. Doing nothing now could also potentially make future enforcement more difficult The team’s payroll isn’t fricking free either In reality there’s nothing for the team to lean into. Fans and the neighborhood like the aesthetics of the rooftops but couldn’t care less who runs them. The team already owns 11 and wants to own the remaining 5. Getting the court ruling was the most effective domino to making that happen sooner. It’s essentially guaranteed now

---

Dang, you’re taking this issue pretty seriously!

quote:

---

Crazy to think that on your own property you can be told not to do what you want with it.

---

I mean, the shoe is on the other foot because the home owners sued Wrigley when they put up the Right Field and Left Field score boards and advertising, claiming they had rights to view the field from their brownstones.

Think its petty from the cubs but it is what it is.

In protest of this disgusting act of vigalante law i am watching cubs games from the roof of my trailer from now on