^That writer is trying to have it both ways. Of course it's legitimate to critique the race to the bottom that causes stupid local municialities to build stadiums for for-profit teams, but that's a completely separate issue, as it is negotiated between for-profit teams and their local municipalities.
The writer is correct that we're probably talking in the neighborhood of $10 million a year from the NFL giving up its non-profit status, but is wrong in dismissing that as nothing. In the grand scheme of things that's not a lot of money, but again, anybody who's criticizing this must make an argument for WHY U.S. taxpayers should be subsidizing the NFL with $10 million dollars every year. Is it worth $10 million a year in taxpayer funds to know Roger's salary? If so, make that argument. Nobody is though because it's a dumb argument to make. It's really only worth it to one group, who happens to be the group we're hearing from: reporters. There's a major principle-agent problem in all of this.
For a sports news outlet it's definitely worth the dollar or so (or less) a year they pay in taxes subsidizing the NFL tax exempt status to know Roger's salary; it's a big story every year and with the clicks it generates it's absolutely worth more than what they're personally losing in the subsidy. For everyone else though, the math is different:
Is there seriously anyone here who in an open market would pay any amount of money out of your pocket to know Rogers salary? If not, that's what we're doing.
