CDZ "The People" and the NFL

[usmbguest5318]

The following post appeared in another thread and it has inspired this one.

When Nitwit Felons League players disrespect the people that the flag represents, they are spitting on their customers, the people who are paying their salaries.

What gives anyone the right to demand that NFL principals and employees, owners and players, behave in accordance with how one thinks they should behave? If you were the owner of a business would you cotton to "every Tom, Dick and Harry" acting as though they have a say in how you run your business and what you tolerate or don't regarding your employees?
...
So when fans start to act as one in terms expressing their dissatisfaction over the conduct of the NFL, they can then act as though they "pay their salaries." Otherwise, that "we pay your salary" line is just talk. It sounds good, I'll grant that, but it doesn't mean sh*t.

What gives me the right is my right to watch their stupid crap or not, and my right to express m y opinion on what they need to do to get my business back.

It is kind of funny that liberals get so upset with opinions like mine when you claim our opinions dont really matter.

So why are you so upset?

As far as I am concerned, if the NFL lets its players piss on our flag and symbolically our nation, our people, our communities and our families, then piss on the NFL too, as far as I am concerned.

I hope they continue down this path and demonstrate once again how leftists destroy all the things that they take over for the sake of their ideological message which they rank above everything else.

Dude, you have every right to boycott the Seahawks or whichever teams bother you.

I used to REALLY like football. Go Larry Csonka! The X's and O's of the game are really neat also.

Its really diminished the last decade or two with adult hood or perspective on the billionaires with their hands out for welfare.

BUT, I'll say I root for the Packers whenever I'm exposed socially.

Some people on both sides (Trump included) just can't effectively convey their feelings. So yeah, I support your protest of the protestors.

At most I'll ask you not lump "liberals" into a group because it begs folks to lump equally poorly able to express themselves "Trumps" or whatever they're called into a group and here we go again drawing dividing lines.

I used to REALLY like football. Go Larry Csonka!

OT:
"Used to" seems the operative word there...Larry Csonka...This pot isn't calling the kettle black, however. I used to as well. Go Lombardi (there's your Green Bay connection), Hanburger, Allen, Jurgensen, Kilmer, Theismann, Gibbs, Ed. Williams, Manley, Riggo, and Rypien.

The "Skins are doing a bit better these days, but make no mistake, the long "winter of my discontent" saw the quality of my seats got better as I watched 'Skins show how to lose one game after another. Thank God for tailgate and post-game parties. LOL!

Truly, I'm what I call a loyal "sometimey" fan. The only NFL team I care about is the Redskins, but, except as someone else's guest, I won't go to the stadium to watch them play unless reasonable be their prospects for having a winning season.

 

[Toronado3800]

At most I'll ask you not lump "liberals" into a group because it begs folks to lump equally poorly able to express themselves "Trumps" or whatever they're called into a group and here we go again drawing dividing lines.

The use of such generic terms like 'liberal' or 'socialist' or 'conservative' always come with the caveat that there will always be exceptions.

BTWs, I consider myself a liberal as well, only from the year 1968, lol, which seems to make me a conservative to most people now.

It is interesting to see how things change over a few decades isn't it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Please allow me to state this again. The money the NFL has received from taxpayers is in the billions, and this is just from the stadium investments:

"All told, 29 of the NFL’s 31 stadiums have received public funds for construction or renovation. In the last two decades, the analysis found, taxpayers across the country have spent nearly $7 billion on stadiums for a league that surpassed $10 billion in revenue last season."
....
"In fact, it may be too kind, said Rick Eckstein, a Villanova professor who co-authored a book on stadium financing. The TPA analysis relies largely on news reports, but those often miss other “subtle” costs that fall to taxpayers, like property and sales tax exemptions, the loss of stadium-related revenue to teams, and other forms of indirect support, he said."

Taxpayers Have Spent A 'Staggering' Amount Of Money On NFL Stadiums | HuffPost

The NFL is a sports entertainment concern and can promote whatever they want but they should do so without tax payer subsidies.

.

NFL gets billions in subsidies from U.S. taxpayers

How Taxpayers Keep the NFL Rich

How the NFL Fleeces Taxpayers

How American taxpayers subsidize the NFL

Taxpayers have spent a staggering amount of money on NFL stadiums in the last 20 years | FOX Sports

The NFL: Big Business With Big Tax Breaks

With $6.7 billion in public money, NFL closes stadium era

This is local money which IMO is largely wasted tribute to the Billionares' Club of NFL Owners. If City/Local officials wanted to subsidize investments that stimulate business, it would be better spent as a more widely distributed allotment. It's not really an argument that these clubs are now somehow subject to oversight and regulation "by the people"..

The many benefits enjoyed by the NFL go well beyond state and local tax exemption, low or zero percent bonds and other funding to support the NFL, on through to the federal level such as Congress' passing of the NFL's Antitrust Exemption.

It is fair to say that NFl games are taxpayer subsidized sporting events.

.

The only monetary "Federal connection" is the cost to provide honor guards and various other military tributes at the games. People and the media sloppily refer to this as Federal subsidy. So YOU might be subsidizing the owners directly through bad local decisions, but the anti-trust protection part is not a subsidy. It's an archaic decision to protect the sport as a unique product. Since it can't be patented.

I'm not happy with that. But it does prevent chaos in drafting, scheduling, and hostile takeovers.

I think you are downplaying advantages like the NFL's antitrust exemption. The power that it has given the NFL is extraordinary:

“Apple or ExxonMobil can only dream of permission to function as a monopoly: the 1966 law was effectively a license for the NFL owners to print money,” wrote Gregg Easterbrook, author of “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America,” in an article for The Atlantic.


Some critics say that government policies are more responsible for the NFL’s success than Goodell, who has now become something of a lightning rod."

How the government helps the NFL maintain its power and profitability

Personally I love football but prefer that the NFL focus remain on the game. If the NFL wants the many advantages given to it, it should deliver on its only stated mission - football. If the NFL opts to do without the many government and taxpayer advantages they presently receive I have no problem with them making the whole game one long political and social commentary jamboree.
.

“Apple or ExxonMobil can only dream of permission to function as a monopoly: the 1966 law was effectively a license for the NFL owners to print money,” wrote Gregg Easterbrook, author of “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America,” in an article for The Atlantic.

Your cited article is out of date as goes the NFL and tax exempt status.

Additional facts of the matter are these:

• One cannot legitimately blame a sports team and its league for negotiating to get the most favorable deal they can. That is what free enterprise is all about.
• Jurisdictions either want a team or they don't. Sports teams are like almost everything else: if one wants to have one, one must pay for it if nobody's willing to "donate" one.
• As go taxes, the NFL is like every other "pass through" organization, including Trump Organization and every other S Corp, partnership and LLC. Not one of them pays income taxes -- though they pay other kinds of taxes, rather than paying no taxes, which is what a non-profit enjoys -- because the organization's income passes through to the partners, who are the owners of the organization. The partners pay income taxes via their respective 1040 filings. Complaining that the NFL doesn't pay taxes is ridiculous because the recipients of NFL net income do eventually pay taxes on that income. [1]

“Apple or ExxonMobil can only dream of permission to function as a monopoly: the 1966 law was effectively a license for the NFL owners to print money,” wrote Gregg Easterbrook, author of “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America,” in an article for The Atlantic.

Monopoly Status
I don't know what on earth you and others think you are talking about. Are others prohibited from forming a football league that competes with the NFL? The answer is, of course, no. Indeed, for a time, there was the USFL in the 1980s that tried unsuccessfully to complete against the NFL. There has also been recent interest in trying again to institute a football league that competes with the NFL.

There is only one professional football league in the U.S.; however, unlike actual monopolies -- water and electricity, for example -- there's nothing stopping willing and able entrepreneurs from creating a competing league. Additionally, unlike telephone service prior to the breakup of "Ma Bell," there's nothing essential about professional sports. Accordingly, the "monopoly" gripe is little other than sophistic rhetoric, not a legitimate basis for complaint. The U.S. has some 500 or 600 billionaires and many more multi-hundred-millionaires; they could form a new football league if they want to. Thus, it's nobody's fault that as yet, no competitor has risen to successfully challenge the NFL. (Truth be told, some rich folks once did try...see the "aside" below.)


Aside: Trump and the USFL and NFL

It's not surprising that Trump has been engendering animus toward the NFL. One of his failed ventures was the USFL New Jersey Generals. Trump is merely manifesting his long-held grudge over having drove the USFL to failure and, as is typical of Trump, he blames the NFL for it instead of seeing that he, quite simply, "screwed the pooch" himself. (These articles are well worth reading.)

• 2009 article -- The History of the USFL
• Trump wanted to be an NFL team owner, but they thought he was a ‘scumbag huckster’
• How Donald Trump Destroyed a Football League
• 5 things about Donald Trump's USFL adventure
• Donald Trump as Football Owner: A Beautiful Circus

Trump, from the very beginning, wanted to be an NFL owner, so he crafted a plan to create a competitor to the NFL that the NFL would later absorb, thus getting him into the NFL owners club. His plan didn't work and it destroyed the USFL.​

Note:

1. As there are only 32 NFL owners, and all of them are one-percenters, I can't say what be the effective tax rate they pay, individually or collectively. I can share what I know about the effective tax rate on average paid by one-percenters, and that rate averages to ~25%, but there are, without question, some comfortable individuals who pay notably lower effective tax rates. Some owners -- notably the Green Bay Packers, which is a non-profit corporation -- have setup their teams as non-profits (I don't know which others are), which makes their compensation wages rather than distributions.

 

[Decus]

Please allow me to state this again. The money the NFL has received from taxpayers is in the billions, and this is just from the stadium investments:

"All told, 29 of the NFL’s 31 stadiums have received public funds for construction or renovation. In the last two decades, the analysis found, taxpayers across the country have spent nearly $7 billion on stadiums for a league that surpassed $10 billion in revenue last season."
....
"In fact, it may be too kind, said Rick Eckstein, a Villanova professor who co-authored a book on stadium financing. The TPA analysis relies largely on news reports, but those often miss other “subtle” costs that fall to taxpayers, like property and sales tax exemptions, the loss of stadium-related revenue to teams, and other forms of indirect support, he said."

Taxpayers Have Spent A 'Staggering' Amount Of Money On NFL Stadiums | HuffPost

The NFL is a sports entertainment concern and can promote whatever they want but they should do so without tax payer subsidies.

.

NFL gets billions in subsidies from U.S. taxpayers

How Taxpayers Keep the NFL Rich

How the NFL Fleeces Taxpayers

How American taxpayers subsidize the NFL

Taxpayers have spent a staggering amount of money on NFL stadiums in the last 20 years | FOX Sports

The NFL: Big Business With Big Tax Breaks

With $6.7 billion in public money, NFL closes stadium era

This is local money which IMO is largely wasted tribute to the Billionares' Club of NFL Owners. If City/Local officials wanted to subsidize investments that stimulate business, it would be better spent as a more widely distributed allotment. It's not really an argument that these clubs are now somehow subject to oversight and regulation "by the people"..

The many benefits enjoyed by the NFL go well beyond state and local tax exemption, low or zero percent bonds and other funding to support the NFL, on through to the federal level such as Congress' passing of the NFL's Antitrust Exemption.

It is fair to say that NFl games are taxpayer subsidized sporting events.

.

The only monetary "Federal connection" is the cost to provide honor guards and various other military tributes at the games. People and the media sloppily refer to this as Federal subsidy. So YOU might be subsidizing the owners directly through bad local decisions, but the anti-trust protection part is not a subsidy. It's an archaic decision to protect the sport as a unique product. Since it can't be patented.

I'm not happy with that. But it does prevent chaos in drafting, scheduling, and hostile takeovers.

I think you are downplaying advantages like the NFL's antitrust exemption. The power that it has given the NFL is extraordinary:

“Apple or ExxonMobil can only dream of permission to function as a monopoly: the 1966 law was effectively a license for the NFL owners to print money,” wrote Gregg Easterbrook, author of “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America,” in an article for The Atlantic.


Some critics say that government policies are more responsible for the NFL’s success than Goodell, who has now become something of a lightning rod."

How the government helps the NFL maintain its power and profitability

Personally I love football but prefer that the NFL focus remain on the game. If the NFL wants the many advantages given to it, it should deliver on its only stated mission - football. If the NFL opts to do without the many government and taxpayer advantages they presently receive I have no problem with them making the whole game one long political and social commentary jamboree.
.

“Apple or ExxonMobil can only dream of permission to function as a monopoly: the 1966 law was effectively a license for the NFL owners to print money,” wrote Gregg Easterbrook, author of “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America,” in an article for The Atlantic.

Your cited article is out of date as goes the NFL and tax exempt status.

Additional facts of the matter are these:

• One cannot legitimately blame a sports team and its league for negotiating to get the most favorable deal they can. That is what free enterprise is all about.
• Jurisdictions either want a team or they don't. Sports teams are like everything else: if one wants to have one, one must pay for it if nobody's willing to "donate" one.
• As go taxes, the NFL is like every other "pass through" organization, including Trump Organization every other S Corp, partnership and LLC. Not one of them pays income taxes -- though they pay other kinds of taxes rather than paying no taxes, which is what a non-profit enjoys -- because the organization's income passes through to the partners, who are the owners of the organization. The partners pay income taxes via their respective 1040 filings. Complaining that the NFL doesn't pay taxes is ridiculous because the recipients of NFL net income do eventually pay taxes on that income. [1]

“Apple or ExxonMobil can only dream of permission to function as a monopoly: the 1966 law was effectively a license for the NFL owners to print money,” wrote Gregg Easterbrook, author of “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America,” in an article for The Atlantic.

Monopoly Status
I don't know what on earth you and others think they are talking about. Are others prohibited from forming a football league that competes with the NFL? The answer is, of course, no. Indeed, for a time, there was the USFL in the 1980s that tried unsuccessfully to complete against the NFL. There has also been recent interest in trying again to institute a football league that competes with the NFL.

There is only one professional football league in the U.S.; however, unlike actual monopolies -- water and electricity, for example -- there's nothing stopping willing and able entrepreneurs from creating a competing league. Additionally, unlike telephone service prior to the breakup of "Ma Bell," there's nothing essential about professional sports. Accordingly, the "monopoly" gripe is little other than sophistic rhetoric, not a legitimate basis for complaint. The U.S. has some 500 or 600 billionaires and many more multi-hundred-millionaires; they could form a new football league if they want to. Thus, it's nobody's fault that as yet, no competitor has risen to successfully challenge the NFL. (Truth be told, some rich folks once did try...see the "aside" below.)


Aside: Trump and the USFL and NFL

It's not surprising that Trump has been engendering animus toward the NFL. One of his failed ventures was the USFL New Jersey Generals. Trump is merely manifesting his long-held grudge over having drove the USFL to failure and, as is typical of Trump, he blames the NFL for it instead of seeing that he, quite simply, "screwed the pooch" himself. (These articles are well worth reading.)

• 2009 article -- The History of the USFL
• Trump wanted to be an NFL team owner, but they thought he was a ‘scumbag huckster’
• How Donald Trump Destroyed a Football League
• 5 things about Donald Trump's USFL adventure
• Donald Trump as Football Owner: A Beautiful Circus

Trump, from the very beginning, wanted to be an NFL owner, so he crafted a plan to create a competitor to the NFL that the NFL would later absorb, thus getting him into the NFL owners club. His plan didn't work and it destroyed the USFL.​

Note:

1. As there are only 32 NFL owners, and all of them are one-percenters, I can't say what be the effective tax rate they pay, individually or collectively. I can share what I know about the effective tax rate on average paid by one-percenters, and that rate averages to ~25%, but there are, without question, some comfortable individuals who pay notably lower effective tax rates. Some owners -- notably the Green Bay Packers, which is a non-profit corporation -- have setup their teams as non-profits (I don't know which others are), which makes their compensation wages rather than distributions.

Your position from what you wrote seems to be built around "One cannot legitimately blame a sports team and its league for negotiating to get the most favorable deal they can". And I agree that companies operating in a free market environment should strive to get the best possible deal for their companies and their stakeholders.

However, given that the NFL has received such incredible financial and legal support from local, state and federal government while operating as a monopoly begs the question of whether football fans can expect something in return? Everything from the cost of tickets, to food and beverages at the game, merchandising as well as certain TV packages continues to climb higher and higher. Is it too much for fans to ask that focus be put on the game and not the politics?

I didn't vote for Trump and understand that you want to make clear your dislike for the man. Personally my argument is simply that as long as the NFL take the tax payer subsidies and other government advantages, then the NFL needs to focus on the game. If the NFL decide to forgo the many advantages they presently receive they are free to do as they please.

The NFL receives huge advantages to deliver its primary mission - sports entertainment. Do it or don't do it, they need to decide.

.

 

[usmbguest5318]

This is local money which IMO is largely wasted tribute to the Billionares' Club of NFL Owners. If City/Local officials wanted to subsidize investments that stimulate business, it would be better spent as a more widely distributed allotment. It's not really an argument that these clubs are now somehow subject to oversight and regulation "by the people"..

The many benefits enjoyed by the NFL go well beyond state and local tax exemption, low or zero percent bonds and other funding to support the NFL, on through to the federal level such as Congress' passing of the NFL's Antitrust Exemption.

It is fair to say that NFl games are taxpayer subsidized sporting events.

.

The only monetary "Federal connection" is the cost to provide honor guards and various other military tributes at the games. People and the media sloppily refer to this as Federal subsidy. So YOU might be subsidizing the owners directly through bad local decisions, but the anti-trust protection part is not a subsidy. It's an archaic decision to protect the sport as a unique product. Since it can't be patented.

I'm not happy with that. But it does prevent chaos in drafting, scheduling, and hostile takeovers.

I think you are downplaying advantages like the NFL's antitrust exemption. The power that it has given the NFL is extraordinary:

“Apple or ExxonMobil can only dream of permission to function as a monopoly: the 1966 law was effectively a license for the NFL owners to print money,” wrote Gregg Easterbrook, author of “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America,” in an article for The Atlantic.


Some critics say that government policies are more responsible for the NFL’s success than Goodell, who has now become something of a lightning rod."

How the government helps the NFL maintain its power and profitability

Personally I love football but prefer that the NFL focus remain on the game. If the NFL wants the many advantages given to it, it should deliver on its only stated mission - football. If the NFL opts to do without the many government and taxpayer advantages they presently receive I have no problem with them making the whole game one long political and social commentary jamboree.
.

“Apple or ExxonMobil can only dream of permission to function as a monopoly: the 1966 law was effectively a license for the NFL owners to print money,” wrote Gregg Easterbrook, author of “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America,” in an article for The Atlantic.

Your cited article is out of date as goes the NFL and tax exempt status.

Additional facts of the matter are these:

• One cannot legitimately blame a sports team and its league for negotiating to get the most favorable deal they can. That is what free enterprise is all about.
• Jurisdictions either want a team or they don't. Sports teams are like everything else: if one wants to have one, one must pay for it if nobody's willing to "donate" one.
• As go taxes, the NFL is like every other "pass through" organization, including Trump Organization every other S Corp, partnership and LLC. Not one of them pays income taxes -- though they pay other kinds of taxes rather than paying no taxes, which is what a non-profit enjoys -- because the organization's income passes through to the partners, who are the owners of the organization. The partners pay income taxes via their respective 1040 filings. Complaining that the NFL doesn't pay taxes is ridiculous because the recipients of NFL net income do eventually pay taxes on that income. [1]

“Apple or ExxonMobil can only dream of permission to function as a monopoly: the 1966 law was effectively a license for the NFL owners to print money,” wrote Gregg Easterbrook, author of “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America,” in an article for The Atlantic.

Monopoly Status
I don't know what on earth you and others think they are talking about. Are others prohibited from forming a football league that competes with the NFL? The answer is, of course, no. Indeed, for a time, there was the USFL in the 1980s that tried unsuccessfully to complete against the NFL. There has also been recent interest in trying again to institute a football league that competes with the NFL.

There is only one professional football league in the U.S.; however, unlike actual monopolies -- water and electricity, for example -- there's nothing stopping willing and able entrepreneurs from creating a competing league. Additionally, unlike telephone service prior to the breakup of "Ma Bell," there's nothing essential about professional sports. Accordingly, the "monopoly" gripe is little other than sophistic rhetoric, not a legitimate basis for complaint. The U.S. has some 500 or 600 billionaires and many more multi-hundred-millionaires; they could form a new football league if they want to. Thus, it's nobody's fault that as yet, no competitor has risen to successfully challenge the NFL. (Truth be told, some rich folks once did try...see the "aside" below.)


Aside: Trump and the USFL and NFL

It's not surprising that Trump has been engendering animus toward the NFL. One of his failed ventures was the USFL New Jersey Generals. Trump is merely manifesting his long-held grudge over having drove the USFL to failure and, as is typical of Trump, he blames the NFL for it instead of seeing that he, quite simply, "screwed the pooch" himself. (These articles are well worth reading.)

• 2009 article -- The History of the USFL
• Trump wanted to be an NFL team owner, but they thought he was a ‘scumbag huckster’
• How Donald Trump Destroyed a Football League
• 5 things about Donald Trump's USFL adventure
• Donald Trump as Football Owner: A Beautiful Circus

Trump, from the very beginning, wanted to be an NFL owner, so he crafted a plan to create a competitor to the NFL that the NFL would later absorb, thus getting him into the NFL owners club. His plan didn't work and it destroyed the USFL.​

Note:

1. As there are only 32 NFL owners, and all of them are one-percenters, I can't say what be the effective tax rate they pay, individually or collectively. I can share what I know about the effective tax rate on average paid by one-percenters, and that rate averages to ~25%, but there are, without question, some comfortable individuals who pay notably lower effective tax rates. Some owners -- notably the Green Bay Packers, which is a non-profit corporation -- have setup their teams as non-profits (I don't know which others are), which makes their compensation wages rather than distributions.

Your position from what you wrote seems to be built around "One cannot legitimately blame a sports team and its league for negotiating to get the most favorable deal they can". And I agree that companies operating in a free market environment should strive to get the best possible deal for their companies and their stakeholders.

However, given that the NFL has received such incredible financial and legal support from local, state and federal government while operating as a monopoly begs the question of whether football fans can expect something in return? Everything from the cost of tickets, to food and beverages at the game, merchandising as well as certain TV packages continues to climb higher and higher. Is it too much for fans to ask that focus be put on the game and not the politics?

I didn't vote for Trump and understand that you want to make clear your dislike for the man. Personally my argument is simply that as long as the NFL take the tax payer subsidies and other government advantages, then the NFL needs to focus on the game. If the NFL decide to forgo the many advantages they presently receive they are free to do as they please.

The NFL receives huge advantages to deliver its primary mission - sports entertainment. Do it or don't do it, they need to decide.

given that the NFL has received such incredible financial and legal support from local, state and federal government while operating as a monopoly begs the question of whether football fans can expect something in return?

The only thing the NFL and its teams are on the hook to provide is entertainment in the form of two teams competing in a football game. That is what fans have a right to expect. It may be that fans desire more than that, but the NFL doesn't promise much other than that.

• NFL Mission statement: "To provide our fans, communities and partners the highest quality sports and entertainment in the world, and to do so in a way that is consistent with our values."

Some teams commit to even less. Take the Steelers, one team for which I could even find a mission statement, for example. Their mission statement doesn't promise to deliver anything.

The Pittsburgh Steelers are proud to be a part of the Western Pennsylvania community. The organization’s strong commitment to this area dates back to 1933 when Arthur J. Rooney, Sr. founded the team. Steelers Chairman Dan Rooney and President Art Rooney II are known as two of the most active NFL owners and are some of Pittsburgh’s most involved executives in civic affairs. Steelers players, coaches and front office staff are involved in appearances, charitable donations and outreach programs with nonprofit and community groups. It’s our way of giving back to the community that has given us so much for 81 years!​

Accordingly, Steelers fans have no basis for expecting from the Steelers more than what the NFL promises.

Everything from the cost of tickets, to food and beverages at the game, merchandising as well as certain TV packages continues to climb higher and higher.

• Across industries, everything goes "retro" except prices. One can attribute that to inflation or increased demand for profit. I don't here care which; both push prices higher.
  
  Inflation is beyond the NFL and NFL team owners' control, and the demand for increasing profits is within what one would expect of any enterprise owner for earning money is why they are in business.
• Everything about entertainment spending is optional. Nobody needs to in any way patronize NFL football.
  
  Would you consider one's griping about the rising cost of dinner at a Michelin Star restaurant as a legitimate beef? I wouldn't were someone to complain about that to me. There's ample low cost or free football entertainment available. That individuals choose to consume the most expensive form of football they can is on them.

Is it too much for fans to ask that focus be put on the game and not the politics?

The NFL's focus is on the game. Look at the NFL's homepage. There's no mention of Colin Kaepernick or "the kneel." We heard that the entirety of the Patriots' roster knelt this past weekend (Monday night?). Is there any mention of it on the Patriots' website? Nope. Everything on the NFL and Patriots' websites is about the game and nothing else.

It's individuals who've chosen to place focus on things other than the playing of the game. CK chose to kneel during the Anthem. That's a pretty quiet protest/advocacy action. Indeed, it's an action that many individuals present in the stadium might easily have not noticed. I mean, really. One dude on his knee amidst a whole bunch of big guys. To wit...

Here're some shots of what one can see with a camera or vision enhancement device.

It's clear that CK isn't calling attention to himself...he's reduced his visibility, not increased it.

What do you think the people in the stands would have observed?

If one's seats were this good (below) maybe one might have been able to pick CK amidst the rest of his team if they have a viewing aid.

The NFL is most certainly focused on the game. The NFL isn't talking about Colin or "the kneel." The NFL is promoting the game.


So don't try presenting some specious BS about the NfL not focusing on football. Quite simply, "that dog won't hunt." Football is all the NFL is focused on.

 

[MizMolly]

I DO own a business, and while my employees certainly have the right to go down to city hall as an individual and support the racism of thug lives matter , if they are representing the business and spouting off with those dealing business with us, I have EVERY right to fire them.

Why people think that these pampered brats should be able to do whatever they want while in the employ of another is beyond me.

I agree. Also, people who attend these sporting events do not pay to see protests, they pay to see the sport.

 

[Decus]

So don't try presenting some specious BS about the NfL not focusing on football. Quite simply, "that dog won't hunt." Football is all the NFL is focused on.

The NFL has already shown an inability to focus by using its broadcasts to promote things like Breast Cancer Awareness - a very important subject but one that the NFL could have directed some of its $14 billion in revenues towards creating a powerful media campaign without the need to dress the players in pink. I think its great that the NFL spends its profit to promote worthy causes but don't use the game broadcast as the medium to do so.

Stadium attendance and TV viewership continues to drop, I suspect other fans feel that the NFL could do more to focus on the game.

.

 

[usmbguest5318]

So don't try presenting some specious BS about the NfL not focusing on football. Quite simply, "that dog won't hunt." Football is all the NFL is focused on.

The NFL has already shown an inability to focus by using its broadcasts to promote things like Breast Cancer Awareness - a very important subject but one that the NFL could have directed some of its $14 billions in revenues towards creating a powerful media campaign without the need to dress the players in pink. I think its great that the NFL spends its profit to promote worthy causes but don't use the game broadcast as the medium to do so.

Stadium attendance and TV viewership continues to drop, I suspect other fans feel that the NFL could do more to focus on the game.

.

False equivalence/dilemma/comparison.

 

[Decus]

So don't try presenting some specious BS about the NfL not focusing on football. Quite simply, "that dog won't hunt." Football is all the NFL is focused on.

The NFL has already shown an inability to focus by using its broadcasts to promote things like Breast Cancer Awareness - a very important subject but one that the NFL could have directed some of its $14 billions in revenues towards creating a powerful media campaign without the need to dress the players in pink. I think its great that the NFL spends its profit to promote worthy causes but don't use the game broadcast as the medium to do so.

Stadium attendance and TV viewership continues to drop, I suspect other fans feel that the NFL could do more to focus on the game.

.

False equivalence/dilemma/comparison.

The issue is "focus" - not too much to ask given all of the advantages the NFL receives.

.

 

[usmbguest5318]

So don't try presenting some specious BS about the NfL not focusing on football. Quite simply, "that dog won't hunt." Football is all the NFL is focused on.

The NFL has already shown an inability to focus by using its broadcasts to promote things like Breast Cancer Awareness - a very important subject but one that the NFL could have directed some of its $14 billions in revenues towards creating a powerful media campaign without the need to dress the players in pink. I think its great that the NFL spends its profit to promote worthy causes but don't use the game broadcast as the medium to do so.

Stadium attendance and TV viewership continues to drop, I suspect other fans feel that the NFL could do more to focus on the game.

.

False equivalence/dilemma/comparison.

The issue is "focus" - not too much to ask given all of the advantages the NFL receives..

Click on the link below and tell me what the NFL is focused on:

• NFL.com - Official Site of the National Football League | NFL.com

I don't see a damn thing about "the kneel" on the "front page" of the NFL's website. There may be something about it buried in later pages, but even if there is, it does not occupy anything like a plurality of the focus of what the NFL is talking about.

 

[Papageorgio]

The many benefits enjoyed by the NFL go well beyond state and local tax exemption, low or zero percent bonds and other funding to support the NFL, on through to the federal level such as Congress' passing of the NFL's Antitrust Exemption.

It is fair to say that NFl games are taxpayer subsidized sporting events.

.

The only monetary "Federal connection" is the cost to provide honor guards and various other military tributes at the games. People and the media sloppily refer to this as Federal subsidy. So YOU might be subsidizing the owners directly through bad local decisions, but the anti-trust protection part is not a subsidy. It's an archaic decision to protect the sport as a unique product. Since it can't be patented.

I'm not happy with that. But it does prevent chaos in drafting, scheduling, and hostile takeovers.

I think you are downplaying advantages like the NFL's antitrust exemption. The power that it has given the NFL is extraordinary:

“Apple or ExxonMobil can only dream of permission to function as a monopoly: the 1966 law was effectively a license for the NFL owners to print money,” wrote Gregg Easterbrook, author of “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America,” in an article for The Atlantic.


Some critics say that government policies are more responsible for the NFL’s success than Goodell, who has now become something of a lightning rod."

How the government helps the NFL maintain its power and profitability

Personally I love football but prefer that the NFL focus remain on the game. If the NFL wants the many advantages given to it, it should deliver on its only stated mission - football. If the NFL opts to do without the many government and taxpayer advantages they presently receive I have no problem with them making the whole game one long political and social commentary jamboree.
.

“Apple or ExxonMobil can only dream of permission to function as a monopoly: the 1966 law was effectively a license for the NFL owners to print money,” wrote Gregg Easterbrook, author of “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America,” in an article for The Atlantic.

Your cited article is out of date as goes the NFL and tax exempt status.

Additional facts of the matter are these:

• One cannot legitimately blame a sports team and its league for negotiating to get the most favorable deal they can. That is what free enterprise is all about.
• Jurisdictions either want a team or they don't. Sports teams are like everything else: if one wants to have one, one must pay for it if nobody's willing to "donate" one.
• As go taxes, the NFL is like every other "pass through" organization, including Trump Organization every other S Corp, partnership and LLC. Not one of them pays income taxes -- though they pay other kinds of taxes rather than paying no taxes, which is what a non-profit enjoys -- because the organization's income passes through to the partners, who are the owners of the organization. The partners pay income taxes via their respective 1040 filings. Complaining that the NFL doesn't pay taxes is ridiculous because the recipients of NFL net income do eventually pay taxes on that income. [1]

“Apple or ExxonMobil can only dream of permission to function as a monopoly: the 1966 law was effectively a license for the NFL owners to print money,” wrote Gregg Easterbrook, author of “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America,” in an article for The Atlantic.

Monopoly Status
I don't know what on earth you and others think they are talking about. Are others prohibited from forming a football league that competes with the NFL? The answer is, of course, no. Indeed, for a time, there was the USFL in the 1980s that tried unsuccessfully to complete against the NFL. There has also been recent interest in trying again to institute a football league that competes with the NFL.

There is only one professional football league in the U.S.; however, unlike actual monopolies -- water and electricity, for example -- there's nothing stopping willing and able entrepreneurs from creating a competing league. Additionally, unlike telephone service prior to the breakup of "Ma Bell," there's nothing essential about professional sports. Accordingly, the "monopoly" gripe is little other than sophistic rhetoric, not a legitimate basis for complaint. The U.S. has some 500 or 600 billionaires and many more multi-hundred-millionaires; they could form a new football league if they want to. Thus, it's nobody's fault that as yet, no competitor has risen to successfully challenge the NFL. (Truth be told, some rich folks once did try...see the "aside" below.)


Aside: Trump and the USFL and NFL

It's not surprising that Trump has been engendering animus toward the NFL. One of his failed ventures was the USFL New Jersey Generals. Trump is merely manifesting his long-held grudge over having drove the USFL to failure and, as is typical of Trump, he blames the NFL for it instead of seeing that he, quite simply, "screwed the pooch" himself. (These articles are well worth reading.)

• 2009 article -- The History of the USFL
• Trump wanted to be an NFL team owner, but they thought he was a ‘scumbag huckster’
• How Donald Trump Destroyed a Football League
• 5 things about Donald Trump's USFL adventure
• Donald Trump as Football Owner: A Beautiful Circus

Trump, from the very beginning, wanted to be an NFL owner, so he crafted a plan to create a competitor to the NFL that the NFL would later absorb, thus getting him into the NFL owners club. His plan didn't work and it destroyed the USFL.​

Note:

1. As there are only 32 NFL owners, and all of them are one-percenters, I can't say what be the effective tax rate they pay, individually or collectively. I can share what I know about the effective tax rate on average paid by one-percenters, and that rate averages to ~25%, but there are, without question, some comfortable individuals who pay notably lower effective tax rates. Some owners -- notably the Green Bay Packers, which is a non-profit corporation -- have setup their teams as non-profits (I don't know which others are), which makes their compensation wages rather than distributions.

Your position from what you wrote seems to be built around "One cannot legitimately blame a sports team and its league for negotiating to get the most favorable deal they can". And I agree that companies operating in a free market environment should strive to get the best possible deal for their companies and their stakeholders.

However, given that the NFL has received such incredible financial and legal support from local, state and federal government while operating as a monopoly begs the question of whether football fans can expect something in return? Everything from the cost of tickets, to food and beverages at the game, merchandising as well as certain TV packages continues to climb higher and higher. Is it too much for fans to ask that focus be put on the game and not the politics?

I didn't vote for Trump and understand that you want to make clear your dislike for the man. Personally my argument is simply that as long as the NFL take the tax payer subsidies and other government advantages, then the NFL needs to focus on the game. If the NFL decide to forgo the many advantages they presently receive they are free to do as they please.

The NFL receives huge advantages to deliver its primary mission - sports entertainment. Do it or don't do it, they need to decide.

given that the NFL has received such incredible financial and legal support from local, state and federal government while operating as a monopoly begs the question of whether football fans can expect something in return?

The only thing the NFL and its teams are on the hook to provide is entertainment in the form of two teams competing in a football game. That is what fans have a right to expect. It may be that fans desire more than that, but the NFL doesn't promise much other than that.

• NFL Mission statement: "To provide our fans, communities and partners the highest quality sports and entertainment in the world, and to do so in a way that is consistent with our values."

Some teams commit to even less. Take the Steelers, one team for which I could even find a mission statement, for example. Their mission statement doesn't promise to deliver anything.

The Pittsburgh Steelers are proud to be a part of the Western Pennsylvania community. The organization’s strong commitment to this area dates back to 1933 when Arthur J. Rooney, Sr. founded the team. Steelers Chairman Dan Rooney and President Art Rooney II are known as two of the most active NFL owners and are some of Pittsburgh’s most involved executives in civic affairs. Steelers players, coaches and front office staff are involved in appearances, charitable donations and outreach programs with nonprofit and community groups. It’s our way of giving back to the community that has given us so much for 81 years!​

Accordingly, Steelers fans have no basis for expecting from the Steelers more than what the NFL promises.

Everything from the cost of tickets, to food and beverages at the game, merchandising as well as certain TV packages continues to climb higher and higher.

• Across industries, everything goes "retro" except prices. One can attribute that to inflation or increased demand for profit. I don't here care which; both push prices higher.
  
  Inflation is beyond the NFL and NFL team owners' control, and the demand for increasing profits is within what one would expect of any enterprise owner for earning money is why they are in business.
• Everything about entertainment spending is optional. Nobody needs to in any way patronize NFL football.
  
  Would you consider one's griping about the rising cost of dinner at a Michelin Star restaurant as a legitimate beef? I wouldn't were someone to complain about that to me. There's ample low cost or free football entertainment available. That individuals choose to consume the most expensive form of football they can is on them.

Is it too much for fans to ask that focus be put on the game and not the politics?

The NFL's focus is on the game. Look at the NFL's homepage. There's no mention of Colin Kaepernick or "the kneel." We heard that the entirety of the Patriots' roster knelt this past weekend (Monday night?). Is there any mention of it on the Patriots' website? Nope. Everything on the NFL and Patriots' websites is about the game and nothing else.

It's individuals who've chosen to place focus on things other than the playing of the game. CK chose to kneel during the Anthem. That's a pretty quiet protest/advocacy action. Indeed, it's an action that many individuals present in the stadium might easily have not noticed. I mean, really. One dude on his knee amidst a whole bunch of big guys. To wit...

Here're some shots of what one can see with a camera or vision enhancement device.

It's clear that CK isn't calling attention to himself...he's reduced his visibility, not increased it.

What do you think the people in the stands would have observed?

If one's seats were this good (below) maybe one might have been able to pick CK amidst the rest of his team if they have a viewing aid.

The NFL is most certainly focused on the game. The NFL isn't talking about Colin or "the kneel." The NFL is promoting the game.


So don't try presenting some specious BS about the NfL not focusing on football. Quite simply, "that dog won't hunt." Football is all the NFL is focused on.

First the website is only going to be about football because that is what fans want. The focus on politics, which fans don’t want to hear about. I watch football to enjoy the games and take a break from the BS of the week. I don’t want to hear about or see millionaires complain about how oppressed they and others are.

If people boycott the NFL then the NFL will know why. It isn’t the product on the field it will be because of the pregame BS.

The NFL website doesn’t show that the reason the Rams, Chargers and the Raiders are moving because cities are going to pay billions to build a stadium either. They didn’t mention the lawsuit that the Hernandez is filing against them. They only offer a positive spin on the NFL. If the NFL fails to recognize or chooses to refuse to see that, then it is on them, not the fans.

 

[Toronado3800]

I DO own a business, and while my employees certainly have the right to go down to city hall as an individual and support the racism of thug lives matter , if they are representing the business and spouting off with those dealing business with us, I have EVERY right to fire them.

Why people think that these pampered brats should be able to do whatever they want while in the employ of another is beyond me.

I agree. Also, people who attend these sporting events do not pay to see protests, they pay to see the sport.

I'll counter with the NFL shouldn't hold their U.S. worship event at the beginning of every game if you don't want people to talk about it.

No anthem, no protesting the anthem.

Think of these anthem protest as an example of the power of group think.

You get 60,000 people standing worshiping the flag, some band playing and the best singer money can buy out there singing. If the WHOLE team protests that is 90 people. 90 people is 0.15% of 60,000 right?

Look at the power of group think here.

If 0.15% of the people there disagree or protest the group think masses are up in arms.

 

[task0778]

I DO own a business, and while my employees certainly have the right to go down to city hall as an individual and support the racism of thug lives matter , if they are representing the business and spouting off with those dealing business with us, I have EVERY right to fire them.

Why people think that these pampered brats should be able to do whatever they want while in the employ of another is beyond me.

I agree. Also, people who attend these sporting events do not pay to see protests, they pay to see the sport.

I'll counter with the NFL shouldn't hold their U.S. worship event at the beginning of every game if you don't want people to talk about it.

No anthem, no protesting the anthem.

Think of these anthem protest as an example of the power of group think.

You get 60,000 people standing worshiping the flag, some band playing and the best singer money can buy out there singing. If the WHOLE team protests that is 90 people. 90 people is 0.15% of 60,000 right?

Look at the power of group think here.

If 0.15% of the people there disagree or protest the group think masses are up in arms.

There's a difference between "worship" and "respect". And if you think the players are the only ones in the stadium or anywhere else that are protesting racial inequality then you might want to reconsider that too.

 

[flacaltenn]

I DO own a business, and while my employees certainly have the right to go down to city hall as an individual and support the racism of thug lives matter , if they are representing the business and spouting off with those dealing business with us, I have EVERY right to fire them.

Why people think that these pampered brats should be able to do whatever they want while in the employ of another is beyond me.

I agree. Also, people who attend these sporting events do not pay to see protests, they pay to see the sport.

I'll counter with the NFL shouldn't hold their U.S. worship event at the beginning of every game if you don't want people to talk about it.

No anthem, no protesting the anthem.

Think of these anthem protest as an example of the power of group think.

You get 60,000 people standing worshiping the flag, some band playing and the best singer money can buy out there singing. If the WHOLE team protests that is 90 people. 90 people is 0.15% of 60,000 right?

Look at the power of group think here.

If 0.15% of the people there disagree or protest the group think masses are up in arms.

That moment of respect is an effort to UNIFY --- not divide. You have a stadium full of blood thirsty fanatical, polarized fans. Maybe 100,000 of them. And THAT IS an appropriate time to unify them and make them consider their country.

That whole event is actually a private, not public event. The players on the field are EMPLOYEES AT THEIR WORKPLACE. What's NOT appropriate is to hold demonstrations at your place of work. SOME employers tacitly or openly allow this. Others do not. Completely up to them how "socially conscious they allow their workplace to be. You don't GET RID of the moment of respect --- you EXPECT the employer to DESIGNATE a more appropriate time and place for the demonstrations. Or BAN it..

 

[Toronado3800]

I DO own a business, and while my employees certainly have the right to go down to city hall as an individual and support the racism of thug lives matter , if they are representing the business and spouting off with those dealing business with us, I have EVERY right to fire them.

Why people think that these pampered brats should be able to do whatever they want while in the employ of another is beyond me.

I agree. Also, people who attend these sporting events do not pay to see protests, they pay to see the sport.

I'll counter with the NFL shouldn't hold their U.S. worship event at the beginning of every game if you don't want people to talk about it.

No anthem, no protesting the anthem.

Think of these anthem protest as an example of the power of group think.

You get 60,000 people standing worshiping the flag, some band playing and the best singer money can buy out there singing. If the WHOLE team protests that is 90 people. 90 people is 0.15% of 60,000 right?

Look at the power of group think here.

If 0.15% of the people there disagree or protest the group think masses are up in arms.

That moment of respect is an effort to UNIFY --- not divide. You have a stadium full of blood thirsty fanatical, polarized fans. Maybe 100,000 of them. And THAT IS an appropriate time to unify them and make them consider their country.

That whole event is actually a private, not public event. The players on the field are EMPLOYEES AT THEIR WORKPLACE. What's NOT appropriate is to hold demonstrations at your place of work. SOME employers tacitly or openly allow this. Others do not. Completely up to them how "socially conscious they allow their workplace to be. You don't GET RID of the moment of respect --- you EXPECT the employer to DESIGNATE a more appropriate time and place for the demonstrations. Or BAN it..

My boss does not make me publicly prostrate myself to a false idol at the beginning of the work day and he may not habe the right to.

I'm not pissing on the graves of soldiers or saying they are not heroes. I believe they are.

This is not Russia or even England though, I can fight the group think.

 

[Papageorgio]

These poor oppressed blacks! They went out, worked hard, practiced hard, played hard, set goals, developed their talent, signed multi million dollar contracts.

They are so oppressed in this country.

I watch football for entertainment, not politics. I’m going to choose to watch the college game Thursday night, I am going to go to a high school game Friday night, I am going to choose to watch college games on Saturday night and I am going to choose not to waste my time on Sunday watching the NFL.

I’m tired of politics in sports.

 

[impuretrash]

I DO own a business, and while my employees certainly have the right to go down to city hall as an individual and support the racism of thug lives matter , if they are representing the business and spouting off with those dealing business with us, I have EVERY right to fire them.

Why people think that these pampered brats should be able to do whatever they want while in the employ of another is beyond me.

I agree. Also, people who attend these sporting events do not pay to see protests, they pay to see the sport.

I'll counter with the NFL shouldn't hold their U.S. worship event at the beginning of every game if you don't want people to talk about it.

No anthem, no protesting the anthem.

Think of these anthem protest as an example of the power of group think.

You get 60,000 people standing worshiping the flag, some band playing and the best singer money can buy out there singing. If the WHOLE team protests that is 90 people. 90 people is 0.15% of 60,000 right?

Look at the power of group think here.

If 0.15% of the people there disagree or protest the group think masses are up in arms.

That moment of respect is an effort to UNIFY --- not divide. You have a stadium full of blood thirsty fanatical, polarized fans. Maybe 100,000 of them. And THAT IS an appropriate time to unify them and make them consider their country.

That whole event is actually a private, not public event. The players on the field are EMPLOYEES AT THEIR WORKPLACE. What's NOT appropriate is to hold demonstrations at your place of work. SOME employers tacitly or openly allow this. Others do not. Completely up to them how "socially conscious they allow their workplace to be. You don't GET RID of the moment of respect --- you EXPECT the employer to DESIGNATE a more appropriate time and place for the demonstrations. Or BAN it..

My boss does not make me publicly prostrate myself to a false idol at the beginning of the work day and he may not habe the right to.

I'm not pissing on the graves of soldiers or saying they are not heroes. I believe they are.

This is not Russia or even England though, I can fight the group think.

Aren't you being just a tad extreme? And if you're not submitting to groupthink where was your outrage against that forced idol worship before this kneeling controversy made it's way into the left wing anti-american MSM headlines? All that explosive rhetoric and not a single mention of what the players are even protesting against.

 

[flacaltenn]

I DO own a business, and while my employees certainly have the right to go down to city hall as an individual and support the racism of thug lives matter , if they are representing the business and spouting off with those dealing business with us, I have EVERY right to fire them.

Why people think that these pampered brats should be able to do whatever they want while in the employ of another is beyond me.

I agree. Also, people who attend these sporting events do not pay to see protests, they pay to see the sport.

I'll counter with the NFL shouldn't hold their U.S. worship event at the beginning of every game if you don't want people to talk about it.

No anthem, no protesting the anthem.

Think of these anthem protest as an example of the power of group think.

You get 60,000 people standing worshiping the flag, some band playing and the best singer money can buy out there singing. If the WHOLE team protests that is 90 people. 90 people is 0.15% of 60,000 right?

Look at the power of group think here.

If 0.15% of the people there disagree or protest the group think masses are up in arms.

That moment of respect is an effort to UNIFY --- not divide. You have a stadium full of blood thirsty fanatical, polarized fans. Maybe 100,000 of them. And THAT IS an appropriate time to unify them and make them consider their country.

That whole event is actually a private, not public event. The players on the field are EMPLOYEES AT THEIR WORKPLACE. What's NOT appropriate is to hold demonstrations at your place of work. SOME employers tacitly or openly allow this. Others do not. Completely up to them how "socially conscious they allow their workplace to be. You don't GET RID of the moment of respect --- you EXPECT the employer to DESIGNATE a more appropriate time and place for the demonstrations. Or BAN it..

My boss does not make me publicly prostrate myself to a false idol at the beginning of the work day and he may not habe the right to.

I'm not pissing on the graves of soldiers or saying they are not heroes. I believe they are.

This is not Russia or even England though, I can fight the group think.

While you fight the "group think" -- you might ask yourself where this hate and revulsion came from in expresssing a simple UNIFYING and respectful and BRIEF and uncommon respect for your country and the flag. NOBODY'S asking you to raise your fat ass off the couch. And if you compare this quick simple act to "prostrating yourself to a false idol" --- and don't respect your country and it's leadership when YOUR MORONS are not in charge -- what makes it important to anyone else when they ARE again in charge?

 

[2aguy]

The following post appeared in another thread and it has inspired this one.

When Nitwit Felons League players disrespect the people that the flag represents, they are spitting on their customers, the people who are paying their salaries.

What gives anyone the right to demand that NFL principals and employees, owners and players, behave in accordance with how one thinks they should behave? If you were the owner of a business would you cotton to "every Tom, Dick and Harry" acting as though they have a say in how you run your business and what you tolerate or don't regarding your employees?


Based on the most precise and concrete information I can find -- the 2000 financials of the Green Bay Packers -- one observes the following (The sums below are the FY99-00 estimated income):

• Broadcasting rights -- $60,928,000
• Home game ticket income -- $14,290,000
• Road game ticket income -- $9,150,000
• Marketing and pro shop sales -- $8,482,000
• Suite and club seat premiums -- $5,794,000
• NFL Properties income -- $3,936,000
• Other operating revenues -- $4,710,000
• Expansion fee income -- $5,000,000
• Investments and other non-operating income -- $4,225,000
• Total -- $116,515,000

The figures above are useful for understanding the proportionality of revenues. The actual figures aren't really the point.

Sharing and the revenue noted above:

In the NFL, three major sources of revenue are shared among all teams.​

• Ticket Revenue: The "road game" revenue is merely the Packer's share of all gate sales and the "home game" revenue is their 60% share of all gate sales.
  
  Why is that important? Because it means that no matter what team's tickets you purchase, 40% of what you pay goes to support all the other teams in the NFL, regardless of what you think of those teams, their owners, the players, etc.
• Merchandise revenue: That just goes straight into the "NFL pool of money" and then shared among all teams. So again, you're supporting teams you like and teams you don't like whenever you buy official NFL team merchandise. (If you buy bootleg, you are supporting none of them.)
• Broadcasting Rights: This too is shared evenly among the teams. This pool of money is what provided every team, in 2015, with ~$226M. Until fans refuse to consume NFL content on any form of media, this bucket of money will keep every team afloat.

So, yes, it's fans who watch the games, buy the tickets and the merchandise, but the reality is that fans have to boycott the entirety of the NFL to have any impact on any team, and the impact, if felt by one team will be felt by all. Fans have to undertake a complete rejection of all NFL teams, most importantly, they have to not watch the games on TV, not listen on the radio, not watch on the Internet, or in any way consume NFL entertainment that is sponsored by advertising dollars, which is what drives the broadcasting rights fees, which are what pretty much ensure the profitability of every NFL team.

So when fans start to act as one in terms expressing their dissatisfaction over the conduct of the NFL, they can then act as though they "pay their salaries." Otherwise, that "we pay your salary" line is just talk. It sounds good, I'll grant that, but it doesn't mean sh*t.

What gives anyone the right to demand that NFL principals and employees, owners and players, behave in accordance with how one thinks they should behave?

Because they are paying them.....and if they want to get ticket money, ad money, merchandise money....then they need to listen to what their actual customers want......that's why.