Jerry Jones, Dallas Cowboys: The business of branding

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Jerry Jones, Dallas Cowboys: The business of branding

When Jerry Jones bought the Dallas Cowboys NFL franchise in 1989, the first thing he did was identify what he could monetize. “It was the brand,” he said yesterday in a keynote address at the INTA Annual Meeting. “You take the passion, tradition, entertainment value and visibility and go to town with the brand.”

At the time, he said, “Dallas was down”: buildings were empty and times were hard. But Jones had made money—lots of money—in oil and gas and had a lifelong love of football. It was while on a fishing trip in Mexico, suffering from “a tequila-induced hangover” that he picked up the phone and offered to buy the franchise.

Thus began a process that would lead to three Super Bowl victories, a colossal marketing program, the building of the most impressive (and expensive) sports stadium and the creation of the second most valuable sports brand in the world (behind Manchester United of the English Premier League).

Yesterday Jones recounted some of the battles on the way, in an interview with sports broadcaster Brian Estridge. He said he realized early on the potential of the Cowboys to exploit their brand and sell sponsorship, but this brought him into direct conflict with the NFL over who had the rights to market trademarks and logos. The NFL sued him for US$300 million. He counter sued for $700 million (“I thought the publicity alone would be worth the fight”). The result was a settlement that said every NFL team gets to use its own brands, but the NFL controls the Super Bowl logo and the cumulative brand.

That led to a boom in sponsorship, memorabilia sales and TV earnings for the Cowboys in the past 20 years. “We use all this visibility, interest and passion and bottle it up,” said Jones, who also stressed the role that trademark law has played in securing protection for the franchise’s name and logos, as well as its nickname—America’s Team.

The future will see technological change, and perhaps the acquisition of a brand that would go on the stadium, said Jones: “If a name’s going to go on the stadium, you should own that company.” But he insisted that whatever changes come, one thing will stay the same: “We’re going to be in the branding business.”

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

As concerns around the little-known litigation tool increase, practitioners say they are educating their clients on how it can be most effective
Kilburn & Strode and Mewburn Ellis are just two firms that have invested heavily in office space – a sign that the legal industry is serious about in-person working
In major recent developments, Dyson snagged another win against Hong Kong-based competitor Dreame and a new AI-powered UPC platform was launched
Mohit and Sidhant Goel decided not to pursue an interim injunction application so that their client, Communications Components Antenna, could benefit from a fast-track trial
Anita Cade, head of Ashurst’s IP and media team in Australia, discusses why law firms that can pull together capability across different practice areas and jurisdictions stand to gain
INTA’s CEO says London-based firms have registered fewer delegates compared to past meetings in San Diego and Atlanta, and questions the 'ethics' of trying to participate without registering
Lobbies and interest groups are among the interveners in a major dispute over whether courts can set patent pool rates
Benoit Geurts and Coreena Brinck will help the firm ‘accelerate its innovation agenda’, according to its managing partner
News of a trademark row over Taylor Swift’s ‘The Life of a Showgirl’ and Nokia’s expansion of its IoT licensing programme were also among the top talking points
IP attorneys share how the Cox v Sony ruling impacts their counselling strategies, and if the case could influence how courts may assess liability for AI platforms
Gift this article