Should the NFL Lose Its Tax-Exempt Status?

[xchrom]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/12/nfl-tax-exempt-status-rootstrikers-roger-goodell



***SNIP

So, you might ask, how did the NFL score such a lucky deal in the first place? It's a classic tale of political influence and lobbying ingenious, as Gregg Easterbrook explains in an excerpt of his book The King of Sports: Football's Impact on America, published in the Atlantic:

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. Essentially, the 1966 statute said that if the two pro-football leagues of that era merged—they would complete such a merger four years later, forming the current NFL—the new entity could act as a monopoly regarding television rights. Apple or ExxonMobil can only dream of legal permission to function as a monopoly: the 1966 law was effectively a license for NFL owners to print money. Yet this sweetheart deal was offered to the NFL in exchange only for its promise not to schedule games on Friday nights or Saturdays in autumn, when many high schools and colleges play football.

Public Law 89-800 had no name—unlike, say, the catchy USA Patriot Act or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Congress presumably wanted the bill to be low-profile, given that its effect was to increase NFL owners’ wealth at the expense of average people.

While Public Law 89-800 was being negotiated with congressional leaders, NFL lobbyists tossed in the sort of obscure provision that is the essence of the lobbyist's art. The phrase or professional football leagues was added to Section 501(c)6 of 26 U.S.C., the Internal Revenue Code. Previously, a sentence in Section 501(c)6 had granted not-for-profit status to "business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, or boards of trade." Since 1966, the code has read: "business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of trade, or professional football leagues."

[FarPoint]

1. I say.....

YES!

[Igel]

4. Wouldn't make much of a difference.

It's a pass-through corporation for a lot of money that's taxed after it's passed through.

The non-profit NFL doesn't do sponsorships or licensing. The for-profit branch isn't non-profit. (As though that needed to be said.)

It's like looking at the Earth from Jupiter. Such a small, harmonious, united, utterly peaceful speck hanging in the darkness of space. Hard to imagine how there could be any complexity there.

[Old Codger]

7. Not sure

I am a pass through entity also, almost every cent that comes into my possession goes to another tax paying entity but I still
have to pay taxes on almost all of it...

[HenryWallace]

17. Agreed: This is a non-issue

The league exists for the benefit of its owners & players.

The owners are all taxable entities (with the exception of Green Bay - this little slice of Socialism will never happen again). Revenue sharing from the league is taxable income.

Player's salaries and pensions are also taxable income.

[Historic NY]

2. Hell Yes.......

[Go Vols]

3. Yes

[rurallib]

5. YES, YES, YES

and pay for those stadiums built with taxpayer money.

[DinahMoeHum]

6. Yes.

n/t

[edhopper]

8. It doesn't matter

as has been said, it's a nonprofit with all the money going to the teams, which pay taxes. If you changed the status they would still show no profit and pay no taxes.

[Vashta Nerada]

9. Absolutely.

[aintitfunny]

10. Yes. eom

[freebrew]

11. Yes!

We're losing m(b?)illions in tax revenue to these parasites.

[Iggo]

12. Yes.

[tclambert]

13. Separation of Church and State applies.

I know a lot more people who worship the NFL on Sundays than go to church.

[MynameisBlarney]

14. Damn right they should.

Cheap bastards get their stadiums built on the taxpayer dime, and are mostly repubs.

The only exception I think is Green Bay.

[AnneD]

16. ITA....

the bigger and more lucrative the NFL gets, the more I like Green Bay.

[City Lights]

15. Absofuckinglutely! nt

[theHandpuppet]

18. Posted on this very subject about 6 months ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023449838

Glad to see folks are revisiting this subject.

[Gothmog]

19. Yes, the NFL iis not a true trade association

I have no trouble with the elimination of the tax free status of the NFL

[The Second Stone]

20. Every entity should be taxed at least as high a rate

as a single mother that waits tables.