5 ms·
The NFL changed the ownership rules, and the Green Bay model cannot be repeated elsewhere. "The NFL does not allow corporate membership. Instead, it requires c
by nhebb 11y ago
The NFL changed the ownership rules, and the Green Bay model cannot be repeated elsewhere.
"The NFL does not allow corporate membership. Instead, it requires clubs to be wholly owned either by a single owner, or small group of owners, and requires that at least one owner owns a 1/3 stake in the team. The Packers are granted an exemption to this rule, as they have been a publicly owned corporation since before the rule was in place."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers_Board_of_Directors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers_Board_of_Dir...
- scoofy 11y agoThat seems extremely anti-competitive. I wonder if that rule could be challenged.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoPrivate company, go start yer own football league if you don't like it, etc.
- michaelbuddy 11y agonon profit with tax breaks you mean
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoWhen it's convenient, yup, doing a public service, keeping kids off drugs, stuff like that.
- tamana 11y agoAny industry can form a similar nonprofit trade association. The members pay tax.
- rickycook 11y agothat's a pretty horrendous way to change what's morally wrong with the world
- TheGRS 11y agoThe alternative is to change a majority of people's minds that this is something morally wrong with the world, make cases to supreme court and/or lobby congress and eventually turn the tide in your favor. Not really sure which way is easier.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoI was mocking it not endorsing it.
- bluejekyll 11y agoXFL
- douche 11y agoIt's been tried a few times... Probably the best challenge was the USFL, but they couldn't make a go of it over the long term, and that was when the NFL media machine was much less entrenched. The ESPN 30 for 30 film "Small Potatoes: Who Killed The USFL?" is pretty interesting (especially given that Trump was a key player in that drama)[1] [1] http://espn.go.com/30for30/film?page=small-potatoes-who-killed-the-usfl http://espn.go.com/30for30/film?page=small-potatoes-who-kill...
- tamana 11y agoIt's a League. The entire reason for its existence is to be anticompetitive (in business).
- baddox 11y agoYes. Note the idiom "in league with."
- rst 11y agoThe NFL got Congress to write them a specific exemption in the anti-trust laws, so it's very, very doubtful.
- thaumasiotes 11y agoI've heard about an exemption for baseball, although that came from judicial corruption rather than being a legislative effort. Confirm that there's a specific legislative exemption for football too?
- jsprogrammer 11y ago[1] 15 U.S. Code § 1291 - Exemption from antitrust laws of agreements covering the telecasting of sports contests and the combining of professional football leagues [2] 26 U.S. Code § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1291 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1291 [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501 There are also a few more places the Code references football: https://www.law.cornell.edu/search/site/football?f[0]=bundle%3Ausc_node https://www.law.cornell.edu/search/site/football?f[0]=bundle...
- HelloMcFly 11y agoFootball and baseball are not equivalently exempt. Baseball enjoys far broader exemption. The NFL does have some conditional exemptions, but not in the same scope [1]. Recently, the US Supreme Court said exactly as much [2] in a very specific scenario. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Scope_of_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Sc... [2] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-661 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-661
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jonathankoren 11y agoThe Green Bay Packers are a non-profit corporation in a private sports league. Business competition within a league is prima facie absurd.
- frandroid 11y agoA team's fans could form a corporation which would be a single owner, but I'm sure the NFL would find a way around that pronto.
- function_seven 11y agoThat's what the NFL rule specifically prevents. They require a single human owner, or a small group where one of the humans has at least a 1/3 stake.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- nostrademons 11y agoApparently the limit is now 5% per individual, 30% per family, and stakes can be owned by irrevocable family trusts: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/05/25/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-trust.aspx http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/05/25... The loophole-finder in me wonders if it would be possible to create "The Mitochondrial Eve Family Trust", for all descendants of mitochondrial Eve, by invitation only. Assets could then be contributed into this trust in exchange for season tickets to a football team, and the trust would own the team. Additional restrictions (eg. X generations of residency in a certain metropolitan area) might apply.
- ableal 11y agoClever, but probably some spoilsport judge would frown at families with 7 billion members.
- kevin_thibedeau 11y agoIt wouldn't make sense to consider family lineage from before the team existed. That alone limits how much you can expand the pool of eligible shareholders.
- jonathankoren 11y agoAs a Green Bay Packer Shareholder, there's a lot wrong with your idea. As per the 2011 Offering Document[1]: 1) The limit isn't 5% per individual, 30% per family. It's 200 shares. Total. 2) Shares can only be transferred to immediate family, defined as "the spouse, children, mother, father, brothers, sisters, or any lineal descendant of a shareholder". An improper transfer will give the Corporation the right to purchase the shares at 2 .5 cents per share. 3) "As is the case with holders of Outstanding Shares, a purchaser of Common Stock in the Offering will not receive any Packers merchandise, through the purchase of Common Stock. However, purchasers will play a key role in facilitating the continued viability of a professional football team in Green Bay and will have the opportunity to have a voice in the Corporation’s governance. In addition, shareholders will receive an invitation to the Corporation’s annual meeting and have the opportunity to purchase exclusive shareholder merchandise."[1] Or in the words of Tom from "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels", "You get a gold plated Rolls-Royce, as long as you pay for it." So what do you get? A piece of paper. The right to vote. The ability to purchase specially branded merchandise. It's not even really a fan club. [1] http://media.broadridge.com/documents/GBP+2011+Offering+Document.pdf http://media.broadridge.com/documents/GBP+2011+Offering+Docu... [2] http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2012/01/13/are-the-green-bay-packers-the-worst-stock-in-america/ http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2012/01/13/are-the-green-ba...
- maxxxxx 11y agoThe first thing I'd do is to take away the tax exempt status of the NFL.
- teej 11y agoThe NFL is already planning to do this. Besides, the teams pay tax.
- tosseraccount 11y agoDidn't this already happen? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/28/nfl-tax-exempt-status_n_7162874.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/28/nfl-tax-exempt-stat... NFL Voluntarily Ends Tax-Exempt Status "Beginning with the 2015 fiscal year, the NFL's league office and management council will file tax returns as taxable entities."
- nols 11y agoThe NFL gave up nonprofit status last year, and its status as one was a bit of a misunderstanding. All the teams (except the Packers) were taxed for-profits, as was the merchandising, TV deals, etc. Basically all the revenue streams were already taxed, and now that they're not non-profit the NFL can be a lot more opaque about its finances.
- gozur88 11y agoI don't think it will matter. The NFL doesn't make money - the teams make money.