Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Merchandising License Steelers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee holds Steelers city-seal licensing bill for one week after questions about terms and revenue share
Summary
Pittsburgh — City Council’s standing committees voted Jan. 29 to hold Bill 14-10 for one week after committee members sought clearer contracting terms and revenue details for a proposed licensing agreement allowing the Pittsburgh Steelers to use the city seal on apparel.
Pittsburgh — City Council’s standing committees voted Jan. 29 to hold Bill 14-10 for one week after questions from council members about contract terms, product limits and revenue sharing for a proposed licensing deal allowing Pittsburgh Steelers LLC to use the city seal on branded apparel.
The bill would authorize the city to allow the Steelers to use the city seal on licensed merchandise at no cost to the city. The finance director and the assistant city solicitor briefed the committee: the law department described the likely terms as a limited, one-year license restricted to particular throwback-themed hoodies, long-sleeve shirts and hats, and the solicitor said the city’s share would be 10% of manufacturing costs (not the retail sale price).
Why it matters: The proposed license would allow a major local sports franchise to include the city seal on commercial apparel; council members said they supported the basic idea but wanted clearer contractual protections and a larger revenue share tied to retail price rather than manufacturing cost.
What council asked for: Council members requested a copy of the proposed designs and a draft of the agreement. Councilwoman Gross said she did not want an open-ended delegation of approval to administration staff and asked that the contract be returned to the council so the final terms would be part of the public legislative record. Council President Lavelle and others suggested asking the Steelers for a percentage of sales as well as a manufacturing-cost share. Assistant solicitor Cameron Broke (Crowe) said he would provide the designs and the current draft terms to council by the following day.
Action in committee: After discussion, members moved and approved a one-week hold; the clerk recorded a voice vote for the hold and the bill will return to committee the following week with proposed contract terms and the designs for review.
Clarifying details: The law department said the current proposal is limited to specific throwback designs and would not cover on-field jerseys; the proposed city share was described as 10% of manufacturing cost, and the solicitor said he would confirm whether a percentage of retail price could be negotiated.
Ending note: Council members said they support using local brands to generate revenue but asked staff to return with a draft agreement, the proposed product designs and improved revenue terms before final committee action.
