3 ms·

While I agree that the NFL is certainly not a charity, I'm not sure that the NFL's nonprofit status is necessarily indicative of the league exploiting loopholes

While I agree that the NFL is certainly not a charity, I'm not sure that the NFL's nonprofit status is necessarily indicative of the league exploiting loopholes. I have always been led to believe that all league profits are shared among the league's for-profit teams who pay the appropriate taxes. Can you explain how the NFL is a prime example of a nonprofit exploiting loopholes?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
001sky 13y ago
The 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act was the first piece of gift-wrapped legislation, granting the leagues legal permission to conduct television-broadcast negotiations in a way that otherwise would have been price collusion. Then, in 1966, Congress enacted Public Law 89‑800, which broadened the limited antitrust exemptions of the 1961 law. But in general, the teams make tons of money and have close zero profits. They use variations of "hollywood" accounting. Which might help explain the cognitive dissonance of profitless monopolies =D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Broadcasting_Act_of_1961 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Broadcasting_Act_of_196... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
- halter73 13y ago
  I would consider the Sports Broadcasting Act and the following legislation that expressly permitted the AFL/NFL merger to be, as you imply, well-known gifts from Congress to American professional sports leagues and the NFL in particular. Those are hardly loopholes, however, since the legislation worked exactly as Congress intended as far as I can tell. Your allegations of "Hollywood" accounting seem more consistent with loophole exploitation, but I would like more concrete evidence other than the alleged dearth of team profits.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    Anyone with firsthand access to NFL, MLB, Premier League Soccer(and other pro sports) financial info will attest to the lack of book earnings. see for eg http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/the-money-leagues-part-2-accounting-for-sports http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/the-money-leagues-part-2...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

001sky 13y ago

The 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act was the first piece of gift-wrapped legislation, granting the leagues legal permission to conduct television-broadcast negotiations in a way that otherwise would have been price collusion. Then, in 1966, Congress enacted Public Law 89‑800, which broadened the limited antitrust exemptions of the 1961 law. But in general, the teams make tons of money and have close zero profits. They use variations of "hollywood" accounting. Which might help explain the cognitive dissonance of profitless monopolies =D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Broadcasting_Act_of_1961 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Broadcasting_Act_of_196... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

halter73 13y ago
I would consider the Sports Broadcasting Act and the following legislation that expressly permitted the AFL/NFL merger to be, as you imply, well-known gifts from Congress to American professional sports leagues and the NFL in particular. Those are hardly loopholes, however, since the legislation worked exactly as Congress intended as far as I can tell. Your allegations of "Hollywood" accounting seem more consistent with loophole exploitation, but I would like more concrete evidence other than the alleged dearth of team profits.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Anyone with firsthand access to NFL, MLB, Premier League Soccer(and other pro sports) financial info will attest to the lack of book earnings. see for eg http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/the-money-leagues-part-2-accounting-for-sports http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/the-money-leagues-part-2...