How the NFL Fleeces Taxpayers

[Popeyejones]

Very good piece -- based on his new book -- by Gregg Easterbrook.

He's senior editor at The Atlantic (one of several places you can find this), but also writes the Tuesday Morning Quarterback column for ESPN. Of course, ESPN is so in bed with the NFL that they're the only outlet that isn't touching this, despite even having Easterbrook on staff there.

Goes over:

* The public funding of stadiums during a time of severe cuts to social services.
* The sweetheart deals to avoid paying for taxes and services even after the public has paid for the stadium.
* The preposterous designation of the NFL as a non-profit organization.
* More!

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... rs/309448/

What do folks think about this? I thought it could make for a good general NFL related discussion.

 

[Sports Hernia]

The NBA has been doing this for years. Doesn't make it right, but doesn't shock me.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^ One difference is that although the NBA is also somehow classified as a non-profit, they're not tax exempt.

 

[therealjohncarlson]

The NFL, (or most other sports leagues for that matter) dont take a profit from one year to the next right? They just pass on their yearly revenue to the players and other staff members. So from a legal standpoint why wouldnt they be a non-profit?

 

[HawksFTW]

The NFL, (or most other sports leagues for that matter) dont take a profit from one year to the next right? They just pass on their yearly revenue to the players and other staff members. So from a legal standpoint why wouldnt they be a non-profit?

Yep. Funny how many people don't understand tax ramifications in this country. The league itself is not for profit, that does not mean the teams/players/executives can't/don't see income.

 

[Jazzhawk]

Very good piece -- based on his new book -- by Gregg Easterbrook.

He's senior editor at The Atlantic (one of several places you can find this), but also writes the Tuesday Morning Quarterback column for ESPN. Of course, ESPN is so in bed with the NFL that they're the only outlet that isn't touching this, despite even having Easterbrook on staff there.

Goes over:

* The public funding of stadiums during a time of severe cuts to social services.
* The sweetheart deals to avoid paying for taxes and services even after the public has paid for the stadium.
* The preposterous designation of the NFL as a non-profit organization.
* More!

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... rs/309448/

What do folks think about this? I thought it could make for a good general NFL related discussion.

With the exception of the 'non-profit' status, very big business in the US does this.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Uh, it seems like some people are under a misconception. Specifically, that the taxpayers are GIVING away money that doesn't get paid back in some form over time.

Giving money to build a new stadium and in return, receiving a cut of the profits, is not just giving money away. Take a look at this: http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2010/0 ... 9_stadium/

20% of the exhibition center profits in Seattle's case go to the Washington Permanent Common School Fund, as an example. It's not just flat-out giving money away with no return.

 

[mikeak]

St Louis were cutting down on city services a few years ago. As a result of the Cardinals going to the World Series (and winning) they were able to keep services UNCHANGED. The huge amounts of revenue that came to the city hotels, restaurants etc led to increased tax revenue made up the shortfall.

All economic articles that only looks at the expenses and ignores employee taxes during the construction phase, taxes from local suppliers that support the building project, taxes from local restaurants and stores during the building phase (where workers eat) and then down the road the revenue from people visiting the city and locals spending their money in their city vs elsewhere are flawed