Connect with us


Fox Sports Responds To Old USFL Lawsuit Allegations

It looks like Fox Sports and its attorneys knew full well this type of lawsuit could come, and they are not happy about it.

David Bernstein of Debevoise & Plimpton, a lawyer representing Fox Sports and the New USFL, wrote the following statement.

“The lawsuit filed yesterday by an entity formed just a week ago is completely without merit. The new USFL registered its intellectual property rights in 2011 and is excited to launch games on schedule on April 16. The eleventh-hour attempt to extract value from the exciting new USFL is utterly frivolous, and we are exploring all options for redress.”

Notice the ‘we are exploring all options for redress’. 

The attorney representing the Old USFL owners Nicholas Matich said the following yesterday.

“Fox is trying to reap where it did not sow and profit from confusion among fans of the real USFL, by claiming the legacy of something it didn’t build.”

We reported yesterday excerpts from an interview The Markcast did with Steve Ehrhart, the former USFL Executive Director. When asked twice if they owned the Trademark, the questions were met with ‘I’m not a Lawyer’ talk. 

The two key points from Fox Sports short response is

  1. The new USFL registered its intellectual property rights in 2011
  2. The lawsuit filed yesterday by an entity formed just a week ago

It makes it pretty clear this group never kept up with the Trademarks, and as we predicted, Fox Sports lawyers did their due diligence before going ahead with the new USFL.

Ultimately a court will decide what the next action is. But it seems like there won’t be an issue, and the season will kick off on April 16th.

Stay tuned to USFL News Hub as we continue to follow this story.

Subscribe to our USFL News Hub YouTube Channel. Get breaking news and the latest USFL news. Plus the USFL Week In Review Podcast.

Mark Perry is the founder and editor of USFL News Hub, a premier site dedicated to providing comprehensive coverage of the USFL. Since its inception in February 2022, the platform has grown exponentially under his expert leadership, carving out a unique niche in the world of football reporting. Mark has been covering football extensively since 2018, with his in-depth knowledge and insightful analysis helping to elevate USFL News Hub as a trusted source for all things related to spring football. His expertise spans various aspects of the sport, offering readers a nuanced perspective on the trends and developments in the USFL and beyond. Beyond his editorial responsibilities, Mark is known for his approachability and commitment to fostering dialogue around the sport. He is always open to inquiries and discussions about spring football. He can be contacted directly by emailing His dedication and passion for football make him a vital voice in the coverage of this thrilling sport.



  1. Brock

    March 2, 2022 at 10:25 am

    Thanx for that very….interesting.


  2. 4th&long

    March 2, 2022 at 10:31 am

    Agreed – and GREED is behind this stupid Real USFL group that might lose money, alot of it in court.

  3. Rob

    March 2, 2022 at 2:47 pm

    “Even after the expiry, a trademark is considered to be active if it is used in the trade and commerce. You can trademark an expired trademark only in such cases where the trademark has not been in use in commerce. If you stop using your trademark, the court can determine that you have abandoned the mark.”

    Clearly, the original USFL was using their trademarks in commerce by selling merchandise. There is a case here. Not to mention that there is now a question that perhaps the supposed transfer of the trademarks was done by an unauthorized entity.

    • 4th&long

      March 2, 2022 at 9:35 pm

      Are these guys even the true “owners” of the league and team trademarks? Its a cash grab. Good luck, cause if (when) they lose they will lose big.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in USFL News

USFL News Hub