End NFL's Tax Free status? Why is the NFL tax free?
http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/end-the-nfl-s-charity-tax-break
= new reply since forum marked as read
and schmooze (reliving their high school "glory"
... 
Just like being anti-war makes me a Paulite 
It's long on emotion, but rather short on valid facts, and even shorter on facts that have enough context to not be construed in a false manner.
Let's start with a definition--usually a good place to start, even if the OP is a bit short on them.
A 501(c)(6) not-for-profit is one of "
6)Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of trade, or professional football leagues (whether or not administering a pension fund for football players), not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual." While HOAs fall under this, let's not let that color our understanding of the law.
Notice: No part of the net earnings inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. So if the NFL takes in billions in revenue--something like $9.5 billion in 2012--what happens to it all? First let's work on more definitions.
When we say "NFL" we sometimes mean teams. There are 35 of them. They are independent corporations, for profit, but are members of the NFL. We don't include our income as Democratic Party revenues, even if we're all members. So first we have to separate out the NFL from its members. The OP doesn't. When he pays for a ticket to watch a game, he's paying the NFL.
When we say "NFL" we sometimes mean the organization that licenses merchandise and negotiates broadcast deals. But that's a separate, for-profit corporation called NFL Ventures. The OP seems not to know this. When he buys a sweatshirt, he's paying a non-profit.
Both of the sets of for-profit companies do pay to the non-profit NFL. That reduces their tax burden. However, they're still all for-profit. Contributions from NFL Ventures and franchise fees (or "contributions" net the NFL $9.5 billion or more per year. And reduce the taxes paid by those for-profits. (However, all that money flows from pot to pot, and where it lands is nearly always a 'for profit' pot--so it's just a question of which pot is responsible for paying, not whether taxes are paid.)
So the non-profit NFL has three options for what it can do with that money: It can pay salaries and expenses (and does), it can distribute the money to its membership (which is a licit activity: the organization is formed for the members, after all), or it can retain the money. If it retains the money for a decade or two it would quickly have enough money to buy a smallish country, but it doesn't retain the money. Most of the money goes to its members. When the members receive it, it's immediately income and they have to pay taxes on it. That includes merchandise fees funneled through the NFL non-profit; it includes revenue-sharing by large, profitable franchises to help smaller franchises.
Meaning that most of the NFL's money is taxed. If not when held by NFL Ventures, if not when held by the Dodgers, then when it gets to the teams that receive it. Just that portion retained by the NFL non-profit--a bit less than 1% of the total--isn't taxed.
A lot of that money is paid in salaries. Which are taxed as any other salary--and are tax deductible, as any other business expense would be. A for-profit may have to find ways to make it a business expense, but they manage even as politicians write and re-write the tax laws to maximize government income and control corporate behavior.
It gets harder and harder to find that "share" of the taxes on the revenue that the OP claims to be paying. Although the way it works out, perhaps that writer really is paying the NFL's full share. Personally.
Why? Become some of the cash is still retained. Most organizations tend to have some money set aside to manage cash flow or respond to emergencies. If it was going to pay tax on that, it would just let more of that money pass through so that by the end of the fiscal year it would have almost no revenue that could be taxed. If it didn't, you'd find a lot of franchises paying a lot more in taxes--meaning it would cost more or fans wouldn't see the games. For those who don't like sports, that's a nice way of managing society to their liking. They have their values and want to impose them.
In this it is exactly like my HOA, which collects money annually and retains a portion to cover emergencies and expenses in case of a reduction in income. And it's exactly like the non-profit that was my student store. It had several divisions. One division paid taxes: It was a store, and if you bought a book or a sweatshirt or a computer or a pencil you'd pay sales tax and even merchandising fees, and net income on the sales was usually taxable. Another branch was the core purpose of the organization: To provide services to the student body that otherwise weren't offered. You buy a cup of coffee at the coffeehouse as a faculty member, you paid sales tax and the organization paid state/federal taxes on the income; if you bought it as a student, you didn't pay tax, because that revenue was tax free. You may pay sales tax on the textbook, but the organization paid no income taxes on that revenue and that lowered the price of the textbook by a trivial amount. Still, the student store had "retained contributions" in order to tide it over tough times or handle emergencies.
