Did you know that the NFL is a tax-exempt nonprofit?
Once in a while, I run across something that I did not know and it leaves me flabbergasted.
For example, I did not know that the National Football League, the colossus of professional sports, is classified as a non-profit — a tax-free non-profit, to be more specific. That’s right: The NFL has its own exemption, written into federal law, that makes it exempt from federal corporate taxes.
IT'S GOOD! ... to be a tax-exempt nonprofit
The Professional Golf Association and the National Hockey League, among others, enjoy a similar exemption although in their cases, it is not an exemption specifically written into the law.
As described in Waste Book 2012 — compiled by the staff of U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, a conservative Republican from Oklahoma:
In 2010, the registered NFL nonprofit alone received $184 million from its 32 member teams. It holds over $1 billion in assets. Together with its subsidiaries and teams – many of which are for-profit, taxed entities – the NFL generates an estimated $9 billion annually. Each of its teams are among the top 50 most expensive sports teams in the world, ranking alongside the world’s famous soccer teams. Almost half of professional football teams are valued at over $1 billion….
League commissioners and officials benefit from the nonprofit status of their organizations. Roger Goodell, commissioner of the NFL, reported $11.6 million in salary and perks in 2010 alone. Goodell’s salary will reportedly reach $20 million in 2019. Steve Bornstein, the executive vice president of media, made $12.2 million in 2010. Former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue earned $8.5 million from the league in 2010. The league paid five other officials a total of $19.2 million in just one year. In comparison, the next highest salary of a traditional nonprofit CEO is $3.4 million.
The NFL’s exemption stems from a 1966 law, passed at the time of the merger with the old American Football League, specifically allowing “professional football leagues” to enjoy 501(c)(6) status as tax-exempt trade organizations. Other leagues have piggy-backed on that legislation to claim that status themselves.
Major League Baseball also used to enjoy the same tax-exempt protection, but in 2007 it chose to surrender that status in part because as the salary information above illustrates, tax-exempt, non-profit status requires you to report the salaries of your top executives. MLB decided that protecting that information from the public was more important than escaping taxes.
As the Coburn report points out, “state and local governments usually exempt these organizations from state income and sales tax as well….” As the Indiana Business Journal reported, that proved to be a nice little perk when the Super Bowl was held in Indianapolis this year, because “hotels and restaurants … won’t be taxing National Football League employees. They’re exempt from paying, according to an Indiana Department of Revenue directive. The NFL is using its tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(6) to avoid paying the taxes, in addition to fuel, auto rental and admissions taxes.”
In Atlanta’s case, a hotel-motel tax was used to build the Georgia Dome and would also be used to help finance the proposed new open-air stadium demanded by the Falcons. If Georgia tax law is like that of many states, the NFL and its employees would be exempted from paying the tax that everyone else must pay to subsidize stadiums built for a highly profitable industry.
Can you say “Scchhhwwweeeeet”?
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
640 comments Add your comment
Obambarrassment
October 18th, 2012
3:11 pm
stands,
I’ve adopted–two children actually. One special needs.
But your insinuation is dangerous, that knowing whether one of your kids has special needs, you might condone killing it.
I think it’s worth witnessing your barbaric pre-Christian thought just to expose who liberals are today.
Thanks for that.
Oh, and overturning Roe wouldn’t do anything with abortion except prevent its forced legalization everywhere. States would vote so that the will of the people could truly be achieved.
you know? Like in a democracy?
Joe Hussein Mama
October 18th, 2012
3:11 pm
LeRoi2 — “Pay attention Joe, debates have rarely if ever affected the outcome of a presidential election.”
Then Romney will lose.
“There are only 2 that are without question, the Kennedy/Nixon debate, and the Reagan/Mondale second debate. Eventually history will add the first Obama/Romney debate.”
I doubt it, but believe that if it makes you feel better.
“No president has been reelected with the kind of economic failure Obama has created”
FDR.
“and he is not going to be either.”
Then Romney’s going to have to make some hard, fast turnarounds in the Electoral College, because right now, he’s trailing.
“This is one of the easier outcomes to predict. The trend is Romneys friend, and the economy is not going to change in the time between now and November 6 to affect the outcome. Most people are cognizant enough to realize that Obama is a complete, total, and unrepentent failure.”
Most people are also sharp enough to recognize that despite Obama’s shortcomings and failures, Romney’s simply not measuring up as any sort of improvement. In fact, in many ways, the American people are recognizing that Romney would be *worse.*
“He is also a liar, and people do not like to be lied to.”
Yet another reason Romney the used-car salesman isn’t going to win.
“They expect a little of it from Pols, but not to the extent that they feel like Obama is playing them for a fool.”
Or the extent that Romney does it every day on the campaign trail.
“Its the economy, and the American people are not stupid.”
If it’s the economy, then tell your boy to stop bringing up stoopid sheet like Big Bird and binders, whydontcha? (laughing)
Aquagirl
October 18th, 2012
3:12 pm
Theoretically, there’s nothing wrong with it…
Just ask Dinesh D’Souza. He’ll give you a bit more than a theoretical evaluation.
Queen Of Mean
October 18th, 2012
3:12 pm
I’ll support polygamy when Polygyny is also supported.
Everyone wants to talk about the man’s perspective ONLY — never the woman’s.
Towncrier
October 18th, 2012
3:13 pm
“Secondly, the reproducible error he speaks of only creeps in *when* you use the recontacting procedure BUT he’s also clearly saying “random variance,” which directly refutes the notion that oversampling is somehow *planned.* The simplest way to eliminate the error is to draw a new sample population each time you conduct the survey.”
Well, my point in even citing Silverman’s statement there was to show that he appears to imply that oversampling (of Democrats or Republicans or Independents) is a “flaw”. This is in contrast to what you were arguing yesterday – that oversampling of a party demographic does NOT necessarily mean it is suspect. Since you cite Silverman so often and seem to highly respect him, I just wanted to point out that he seems to think of this as problematic.
“And FWIW, I gave you an incorrect link this morning on our previous discussion thread. This is the link to the survey I mentioned that oversamples Republicans.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_CO_1016.pdf
FYI, I wasn’t *looking* for such a survey; I just noticed that Republicans were oversampled in it. Frankly, I think it happens more that you’re willing to admit, and I think you should go research it and see just how often it happens (given your repeatedly expressed upset over Democratic oversampling).”
Thanks! I have more than once asked posters here for evidence of Republican oversampling. That makes me feel somewhat better, because (as I said) if it NEVER happens then that suggests something is really wrong.
Paul
October 18th, 2012
3:13 pm
Towncrier
“My objection to same sex marriage is simple: homosexuality is proscribed in the Bible”
So how do you feel about basing law on Sharia? After all, if something is proscribed in the Koran, no one should complain about using that as a basis for legislation.
“that we have no comprehensive long term studies to determine whether of not child rearing by a homosexual couple is not harmful to children) and so institutionalizing it in this way is wrong in my view.”
I double-dog dare you to address that to josef.
” If I were an atheist or agnostic, I really wouldn’t care. Once you get outside of Biblical morality, then ethics are clearly situational and not absolute
You may not want to put ignorance on full display like that. Anything other than morality referenced in the Bible is situational and not absolute?
So…. you are aware of what Jesus had to say about divorced people marrying, aren’t you? You going to support legislation do codify that moral absolute?
bookman parrot
October 18th, 2012
3:14 pm
you have to say though that it (NFL) is a good high paying employer of minorities.
Towncrier
October 18th, 2012
3:16 pm
“Pay attention Joe, debates have rarely if ever affected the outcome of a presidential election.”
This question was well debated this past Sunday on Meet the Press (I believe). The verdict? Presidential debates are often consequential, but not always.
Doggone/GA
October 18th, 2012
3:16 pm
“I’ll support polygamy when Polygyny is also supported.”
The problem with polygamy in a society where men and women have equal rights, is that a man could have, say, 3 wives, and each of those wives could have 2 additional husbands. And those husbands could each have 2 additional wives, who could each have 2 additional husbands.
See what I meant about “horrific entanglemnents?
Obambarrassment
October 18th, 2012
3:18 pm
Queen of Mean,
http://www.unionfacts.com/employees/AFL-CIO
Profits? Technically no.
Lots of money spent on luxury? Technically yes.
Looks like you could be a campaign coordinator and get six figures. CEO’s can make 400 large.
Just like companies who do pay taxes, unions rent expensive offices, hire lavishly appointed furniture, expend money on rich salaries.
But hey, their union dues can’t go to paying taxes–naw, that wouldn’t be fair.
Paul
October 18th, 2012
3:18 pm
Majority
“Your link only shows that Romney is campaigning to uphold the exceptions like rape, incest and health of the mother. ”
So…. what?
Murder is murder.
Doesn’t matter if it’s one or many.
How can you champion the election of a baby killer supporter?
Skip
“If Viet Nam had dragged out like Korea would Mitt still be in Paris?”
Would Clinton still be in Oxford?
Obambarrassment
October 18th, 2012
3:19 pm
Paul,
Clinton in Russia too…..
Joe Hussein Mama
October 18th, 2012
3:19 pm
Obambarrassment — “Oh, and overturning Roe wouldn’t do anything with abortion except prevent its forced legalization everywhere. States would vote so that the will of the people could truly be achieved.”
One of the same arguments used to perpetuate slavery; that it was “the will of the people.”
“you know? Like in a democracy?”
Fortunately, we don’t put people’s rights up for a vote in this country. Oh, sure, some states and localities might do it, and might even pass a law or two that stands — for a while. But in the end, laws that enjoin individual rights in the country get legal review, and unless there’s a compelling *state* interest that’s drawn as narrowly as possible in the law, such laws get overturned.
Jay
October 18th, 2012
3:20 pm
Sheets.
LeRoi2
October 18th, 2012
3:20 pm
Enjoy your laugh now Joe, as well as your ignorance of history. He who laughs last, laughs best.
Paul
October 18th, 2012
3:21 pm
Queen of Mean
“I’ll support polygamy when Polygyny is also supported.
Everyone wants to talk about the man’s perspective ONLY — never the woman’s.”
Then you might want to discuss polyandry, not polygyny.
Paul
October 18th, 2012
3:24 pm
Doggone/GA
I believe you’re referencing bigamy, which is a separate issue.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
October 18th, 2012
3:24 pm
Paul:
Mark 10:6-8 : “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, ‘and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.”
If you want to do more research may I suggest this site:
http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp75.htm
stands for decibels
October 18th, 2012
3:29 pm
I’ve adopted–two children actually. One special needs.
Good for you. I do mean that genuinely.
But your insinuation is dangerous, that knowing whether one of your kids has special needs, you might condone killing it.
Well, your insinuation that a weeks-old embryo is a “kid” is, IMHO, dangerous too.
But I wasn’t insinuating anything. Having gone through the adoption process myself, I know that prospective parents are placed in a position where they’re asked just what type of child they want to foster, or adopt. Which is why I was asking the question.
Anyway, congrats on your decision. We have adoptive parenting in common, anyway, so I guess I can’t completely hate yer guts…
headin’ upstairs for Teh Ghey Marriage sheetz.
Obambarrassment
October 18th, 2012
3:29 pm
Joe,
I bring reminder to the embarrassment that is Obama, but today you do so to yourself.
Fortunately, we don’t put people’s rights up for a vote in this country.
We all know that the left does not think of unborn as persons (we also know that Obama doesn’t want to consider that air-breathing babies born after an abortion has been attempted on them are persons). Thanks again for the reminder of what you believe.
If you use the words “will of the people,” it does beget the end of slavery, actually. Slaves were people too despite what the slavery curmudgeons attempted to say. Interestingly, you are the one making the slavery argument–that certain segments of the population manifestly are not persons. The recipe for the demise of your argument then is in your own words. You string up this concoction and then proceed to hang yourself from it.
How nice.
Your own words bury your own argument….. and then you proceed to high-minded nonsense:
laws that enjoin individual rights in the country get legal review, and unless there’s a compelling *state* interest that’s drawn as narrowly as possible in the law, such laws get overturned.
….sure…. like slavery was “overturned” by the Supreme Court….? ??
Or was that Abraham Lincoln?
Help me to recall what really happened Joe, could you do that, please?
Paul
October 18th, 2012
3:32 pm
Scout 3:24
To which of my posts are your referring?
Obviously not to the one in which I referenced Jesus’s teaching on remarriage after divorce. You may want to do some more research.
Queen Of Mean
October 18th, 2012
3:34 pm
States would vote so that the will of the people could truly be achieved.
HA! WHEN did states start doing that?
Obambarrassment
October 18th, 2012
3:40 pm
Queen,
Right, so we have states doing very little else besides trampling on people’s rights, right? Then we’ve got the federal government, the quintessential hero in all things good–headed by Barack Obama–wielding his sword and shield to save us from our own state governments?
Just what ARE you saying anyway?
Speak plainer.
Joe Hussein Mama
October 18th, 2012
3:41 pm
Towncrier — “Well, my point in even citing Silverman’s statement there was to show that he appears to imply that oversampling (of Democrats or Republicans or Independents) is a “flaw”. This is in contrast to what you were arguing yesterday – that oversampling of a party demographic does NOT necessarily mean it is suspect.”
FWIW, from Silver’s perspective, *any* kind of demographic oversampling could be termed a flaw; age, gender, education level, geographic residence, household income — but I don’t see any hand-wringing over those particular demographic categories not being accurately represented.
Look, seriously, this is what the Margin of Error addresses. Statistically speaking, it’s virtually impossible to draw a survey population of ~1000 people in the US that will *exactly and precisely* reflect the results that the poll would have if EVERYONE in the potential universe of survey subjects was asked. Survey populations are drawn from the pool/universe, and if you know the N (number of survey subjects) and the total number of *possible* respondents in the potential universe, you can mathematically derive the MOE. Bigger sample populations mean smaller MOEs, but it’s a matter of diminishing returns. You have to add an increasingly large amount of respondents once you get past about +/-3% if you want to decrease the MOE even more.
As a rough rule of thumb, a survey population of around 1,000 adult Americans will generally give you an MOE in the neighborhood of 3%. A survey population of around 2,500 would be necessary to get it down to around 2.5% or so. If you’re shooting for a certain MOE (and FWIW, I don’t rely on polls with anything worse than 3.0%), you can estimate how many respondents you want in order to approach or beat that level of acccuracy. Polls with 4% or greater MOE are, IMO, garbage. I saw a couple of recent polls with 4.8 and 5.2 MOEs; my response to those is ‘why waste your time conducting them in the first place?’
“Since you cite Silverman so often and seem to highly respect him, I just wanted to point out that he seems to think of this as problematic.”
FWIW, I think he’d tell you the same thing as I did about age, gender, etc. as being pertinent demographic data points that aren’t being tracked. And I think it’s important to note that party affiliation is probably the most *fluid* of those factors.
Tom(Independent Viet Vet-USAF)
October 18th, 2012
3:41 pm
Do not want to read too much into Gallup Poll but I had rather be up by +7 than down by -7?
Joe Hussein Mama
October 18th, 2012
3:43 pm
LeRoi2 — “Enjoy your laugh now Joe, as well as your ignorance of history.”
Said the guy who tripped over FDR a few minutes ago.
“He who laughs last, laughs best.”
Indeed. And I do hope you will return to receive my laughs and obloquy.
Jay
October 18th, 2012
3:44 pm
Skipper, would you like to see heterosexuals judged by what happens at Mardi Gras in New Orleans?
Or spring break in Florida?
Or at frat parties or strip clubs?
That Black Guy
October 18th, 2012
3:46 pm
Keep Up the Good Fight!
October 18th, 2012
12:45 pm
TBG, sorry you missed the irony. Trying “blame Bush”…. of course most of these things have been in process for years, just like the deficit. The point is that when it comes to Obama, there was “no one” before him, but when it comes to others like state republicans, there is always an excuse.
___________________________________________________
Oh no, Keep, I got it.
I just have such a low regard for politicans from either party.
If that looked like a dig at you, my bad.
Towncrier
October 18th, 2012
3:46 pm
“So how do you feel about basing law on Sharia? After all, if something is proscribed in the Koran, no one should complain about using that as a basis for legislation.”
I am not a Muslim and don’t at all regard the Koran as anything more than the basis for a false religion. And the US is not a theocracy (Judaism entails that but not Christianity). Therefore, I am free to express my views and cast my single vote.
“I double-dog dare you to address that to josef.”
This is NOT the first time I have made this claim. I believe he is very familiar with my views.
“You may not want to put ignorance on full display like that. Anything other than morality referenced in the Bible is situational and not absolute?”
Ooops… looks like I hit a proverbial nerve. But my “ignorance” (such as it is) is always on display. So – by the way – is yours and everyone else’s.
Now that we have that out of the way, let me invite you to provide an objective grounds for morality outside of that ostensibly provided by God. If there is no God, what morality is absolute? Can you make a case from human history? If morality is not absolute, then it is also situational.
“So…. you are aware of what Jesus had to say about divorced people marrying, aren’t you? You going to support legislation do codify that moral absolute?”
Of course. He said the only grounds for divorce and remarrying is adultery. To remarry after a divorce for other reasons is to continually commit adultery. As for whether or not I would support legislation to enforce this, I don’t know. Should things that cause great societal harm be outlawed? Aren’t some already? I do believe that a many of our societal ills are traceable to broken or incomplete families and the disintegration of the so-called extended family. If the Bible says anything about the nature of God it is that He is committed to relationships. I am afraid many Americans today have a very nonchalant attitude about commitment in relationships. But I am not sure you are so much interested in discussing the basis or wisdom of Jesus’ teaching as to use it as a debating point.
curious
October 18th, 2012
3:47 pm
Abortion may be ruled illegal, but it won’t go away.
the wealthy will pay enough to get it done either in this country or outside the country.
The poor will either go with the coat hanger solution or give birth to an unwanted child.
Paul
October 18th, 2012
3:59 pm
Towncrier
“Now that we have that out of the way, let me invite you to provide an objective grounds for morality outside of that ostensibly provided by God.”
First it was the Bible, now it’s God.
Move those goalposts…
“As for whether or not I would support legislation to enforce this, I don’t know. ”
Why not? It’s in the Bible. Jesus said it. It’s a moral absolute. It came from God.
Ever heard of cafeteria Christians?
What I read from you is a hard line on those teachings you like, and a whole lot of “well… it depends…” on teachings, like remarriage after divorce, you don’t like.
Not a debating point. It’s about seeking consistency from one who trumpets moral absolutes from the teachings of Jesus.
Upstairs – fits right in with this discussion.
Joe Hussein Mama
October 18th, 2012
4:01 pm
Obambarrassment — “I bring reminder to the embarrassment that is Obama, but today you do so to yourself.”
No embarrassment at all. Simply clueless misunderstanding from your corner. (giggling)
“We all know that the left does not think of unborn as persons (we also know that Obama doesn’t want to consider that air-breathing babies born after an abortion has been attempted on them are persons). Thanks again for the reminder of what you believe.”
You want a reminder? I’ll give you a reminder. I support abortion on demand.
“If you use the words “will of the people,” it does beget the end of slavery, actually. Slaves were people too despite what the slavery curmudgeons attempted to say.”
And they were property, too, and laws were promulgated to enforce property rights with respect to slaves. Fortunately, the slaves’ rights were eventually recognized. And so it shall be with women, whereupon they will be able to make their own decisions about their bodies, as opposed to the government deciding for them.
“Interestingly, you are the one making the slavery argument–that certain segments of the population manifestly are not persons.”
Aaaaaand the point goes right over the clueless con’s head (laughing, pointing)
The “persons” I mentioned aren’t feti. They’re the pregnant women y’all want to boss around, Champ.
“The recipe for the demise of your argument then is in your own words. You string up this concoction and then proceed to hang yourself from it.”
Well, sure if I meant to say what you wrongly THOUGHT I meant to say. But I *didn’t* think or say that, so you’re wrong. (laughing, pointing)
“How nice.”
Maaaaaan, you’re clueless.
“Your own words bury your own argument…”
Nope. You simply misread me and leapt to judgment thereby. (laughing)
“… and then you proceed to high-minded nonsense:”
Said the master of the art. (snickering)
“….sure…. like slavery was “overturned” by the Supreme Court….? ??”
There are documented cases of slavery in the US as late as the 1880s. Suppose you tell me how those slaves were freed? Do you imagine that someone waved a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation at the slaveowner and the shackles magically popped off the slaves’ ankles and wrists?
“Or was that Abraham Lincoln?”
You really should read more. (laughing)
“Help me to recall what really happened Joe, could you do that, please?”
Sure!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
That Black Guy
October 18th, 2012
4:35 pm
DannyX
October 18th, 2012
2:57 pm
““Flat belly” is his term for a young attractive fit woman. he has used it on women he likes AND dislikes.”
And this helps you how?
_________________
If you don’t know what is being discussed, try rereading for context.
Or not.
barking frog
October 18th, 2012
4:57 pm
con feti will scatter across
the earth in celebration of
life..
The NFL, NHL, PGA are all nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations
October 18th, 2012
5:30 pm
[...] That’s right, the NFL. It’s apparently classified as a nonprofit organization free of federal taxes, according toThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution. [...]
Absurd bird
October 18th, 2012
10:39 pm
Anyone who doesn’t want to pay thier fair share should just leave the country and call it soccer
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
October 19th, 2012
8:40 am
JAY,
The two most accurate polls (both were spot on) in 2008 were Rasmussen and Pew..both showing Romney gaining ground and now slightly ahead in both…need to wait and see about next Pew poll as the one that had Romney up by 4% after first debate….need to see what new numbers are…Rasmussen has Romney up by 2% as of 10/18
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
October 19th, 2012
8:45 am
ABSURD BIRD
Who exactly defines “fair share”? I thought is was the IRS…is it you? Is it the DEMS who are victimizing 99% at the hands of the 1%? You realize that rolling back rates for top earners as suggested by DEMS will not likely even offset new spending going forward? $80 billion per year with at growth rate less that 2%..and an annual deficit of over 1 trillion?
DEMS seem to think this is about unfairness…its’ purely political ploy by DEMS to further victimize its’ core voting block.
Jim
October 23rd, 2012
7:33 am
i thought it was a sports article and all i keep reading is this nonsense about dems and libs and obama and romney. oye god, save us.
So Maybe Charity Does Begin at Home? | The Sport Digest
October 23rd, 2012
4:11 pm
[...] breaking story written by Jay Bookman in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was just too good not to post and [...]