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?


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.

 

[OldLady]

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?
Good point.

In some ways, it would be sad to see the "tradition" of football go the way of the dodo. But with what they are learning about the brain injuries they suffer, maybe it IS time for football to roll up its tent and go home. Pro ball, anyway.

 

[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

 

[Votto]

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.

So let me get this straight, a religious person should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding even though they believe it to be an abomination?

So the NBA owner that lost his team because someone secretly recorded a bigoted comment should lose his team even though just prior the NAACP gave him an award on race relations?

The difference between these is, those that the left hates are out of work and owe thousands of dollars, as where the leftists in the NFL will never lose their jobs.

 

[Decus]

If we look at other entities receiving government funds you have things like the Hatch Act that require a code of conduct in return for the money received. Here is an example:

"As part its stewardship, FTA imposes certain ethics obligations on its own employees and contractors, and the recipients of FTA financial assistance and the recipients’ contractors."

"Prohibitions Against Recipient Employee Political Activity – Certain employees of FTA recipients are restricted in their participation in political activities. The Hatch Act limits the political activities of state and local agencies and their officers and employees, whose principal employment activities are financed in whole or part with federal funds, including a federal grant, cooperative agreement, or loan."

Ethics in Federally Funded Public Transportation

Given the billions in taxpayer subsidies received by the NFL, adhering to the Hatch Act seems reasonable.

.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

 

[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.

So why are you so upset?

"Upset" is not the emotional state of mind I had when composing the OP. "Incredulity" was the frame of mind I had.

 

[Votto]

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.

Destroying the NFL would be beneficial for the DNC.

It would mean less high paying jobs which translates into more equal pay for all Americans.

 

[flacaltenn]

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"..

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

It's actually the same mechanism of consumer leverage that exists in EVERY private product "for sale". In fact --- it's magnified in spectator sports -- because it's NOT a REQUIRED hemorroid pad or basic necessity. The fact that revenue flows from various forms of "consuming" the sport --- also MAGNIFIES the impact of a boycott. Because when the NFL fucks up -- there is a far larger and dense "supply chain" of businesses that get affected. Go read your list of revenue sources and SEE how many "business relations" are involved here. It's MORE than most private products and services.

When ESPN for example starts dicking around "free expression" issues -- which of course is their RIGHT as an employer -- the wrath and blow back is pretty much the same from the consumers. But there is not this MASSIVE eco-system of suppliers, consultants, contractors, manufacturers, advertisers, ticket sales, parking, food/beverage, etc that get beat up..

They can only "revenue share" to certain limits. And TWO teams are affected every time one team "turns off the audience".

They need to figure out what business they are in. And whether they can afford to continue to "back causes" and STILL focus on their product. I'd say their advertisers have the "cause concession" pretty well wrapped up. No sense in them taking the risk exposure.

 

[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?


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.

It's actually the same mechanism of consumer leverage that exists in EVERY private product "for sale". In fact --- it's magnified in spectator sports -- because it's NOT a REQUIRED hemorroid pad or basic necessity. The fact that revenue flows from various forms of "consuming" the sport --- also MAGNIFIES the impact of a boycott. Because when the NFL fucks up -- there is a far larger and dense "supply chain" of businesses that get affected. Go read your list of revenue sources and SEE how many "business relations" are involved here. It's MORE than most private products and services.

When ESPN for example starts dicking around "free expression" issues -- which of course is their RIGHT as an employer -- the wrath and blow back is pretty much the same from the consumers. But there is not this MASSIVE eco-system of suppliers, consultants, contractors, manufacturers, advertisers, ticket sales, parking, food/beverage, etc that get beat up..

They can only "revenue share" to certain limits. And TWO teams are affected every time one team "turns off the audience".

They need to figure out what business they are in. And whether they can afford to continue to "back causes" and STILL focus on their product. I'd say their advertisers have the "cause concession" pretty well wrapped up. No sense in them taking the risk exposure.

The reason for the discussion of how the NFL makes and shares revenue is to make clear that, financially speaking with regard to the team owners, unless and until consumers of football by the millions make a clean and complete boycott of football, all the so-called fan outcry is just talk...it's "tits on a bull."

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

It's actually the same mechanism of consumer leverage that exists in EVERY private product "for sale". In fact --- it's magnified in spectator sports -- because it's NOT a REQUIRED hemorroid pad or basic necessity. The fact that revenue flows from various forms of "consuming" the sport --- also MAGNIFIES the impact of a boycott. Because when the NFL fucks up -- there is a far larger and dense "supply chain" of businesses that get affected. Go read your list of revenue sources and SEE how many "business relations" are involved here. It's MORE than most private products and services.

When ESPN for example starts dicking around "free expression" issues -- which of course is their RIGHT as an employer -- the wrath and blow back is pretty much the same from the consumers. But there is not this MASSIVE eco-system of suppliers, consultants, contractors, manufacturers, advertisers, ticket sales, parking, food/beverage, etc that get beat up..

They can only "revenue share" to certain limits. And TWO teams are affected every time one team "turns off the audience".

They need to figure out what business they are in. And whether they can afford to continue to "back causes" and STILL focus on their product. I'd say their advertisers have the "cause concession" pretty well wrapped up. No sense in them taking the risk exposure.

The reason for the discussion of how the NFL makes and shares revenue is to make clear that, financially speaking with regard to the team owners, unless and until consumers of football by the millions make a clean and complete boycott of football, all the so-called fan outcry is just talk...it's "tits on a bull."

I'd say based on how this little dust-up TOTALLY buried, Russia Russia Russia and created the 1st hiatus in the Trump Derangement syndrome since Nov -- that it's getting more than enough traction. Merged about 14 threads today. ALL in politics. You don't MESS with sports. It's like invading people's weekends and shoving your into their living rooms without an invite.

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

 

[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.

.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The racist NFL Players and greedy NFL Owners are dishonoring our Soldiers and Policemen who sacrificed everything so that they could be ungrateful spoiled multi-millionaire entertainers, screw the NFL

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

The NFL did not develop football, lol. It has been around for centuries.

NFL gets billions in subsidies from U.S. taxpayers

The NFL is the most profitable pro sports league in the U.S., raking in an estimated $1 billion in profits on $10.5 billion in revenue last season, figures that are sure to increase this year.

Those massive profits are made possible in part by the billions of taxpayer dollars that local governments spend on teams, coupled with tax breaks worth hundreds of millions for the teams, the league, their sponsors and fans.

"I've been studying this for 15 years, and I still can not believe cities and states are lined up begging to give money to these very profitable [teams]," said Villanova professor Rick Eckstein, an expert on stadium finance....

Not for profit: The NFL's not for profit status strikes critics as particularly unseemly, given its financial might. But it's categorized that way because the league's profits are distributed to each of the teams, rather than kept by the league itself.

The league probably only saves about $10 million a year as a non-profit, according to Richard Phillips, research analyst with Citizens for Tax Justice, which is a rounding error for a league as profitable as the NFL.​

End the N.F.L. Tax Breaks - NYTimes.com

Should the N.F.L. continue to operate as a tax-exempt organization? At Taxpayers for Common Sense, we think the answer is no. The N.F.L. helps teams make money through joint business ventures – a fine goal for football teams, but not one taxpayers need to subsidize.

The portion of the tax code that covers the N.F.L., Section 501 (c)(6), governs “trade associations,” exempting from taxation organizations whose primary purpose is to further an industry or profession. There are trade associations to promote everything from accountants and attorneys to travel agents and pork producers. Trade associations may not benefit individual shareholders, while contributions to them are not tax deductible and their income is not taxed.

The N.F.L.’s eligibility for 501 (c)(6) status is not based on its characteristics but was instead set by Congress in 1966 when Public Law 89-800 passed, redefining tax-exempt organizations in section 501(c)(6) of the tax code to include “professional football leagues.” The problem with that redefinition is that unlike a trade association, the N.F.L. promotes a league made up of 32 teams (or owners) and controls television contracts, licensing fees and other joint activities in which the member teams participate and from which they profit significantly.

The teams pay taxes, but the dues they pay to support the N.F.L.’s front office are not taxed. According to the N.F.L.’s 990 filing (required of all nonprofits), the total collected in “dues and assessments” and “coach/club fines” was $326.8 million in 2012.​

 

[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.

.

.