NFL 2014

[Lakov_Sanite]

When you want to trademark or copyright anything you are asking the government to protect your intellectual property.  Nowhere does it say that they must do this.  It can't be said enough but you can't just trademark something because you want to, you have to go and ask the nice government person and they can and often do, say no.  You can be denied trademark for a lot of reasons, having a racial slur in the name is one of them.  I would bet you that NWA did not trademark what we know the full name of the band, they likely only trademarked "NWA"

This stupid argument that it's somehow freedom of speech has to stop. 

[Johny Cee]

The NFL has special tax-exempt status -- it's explicitly written into our tax code. This is a public issue.

No they don't. The only tax exempt portion is the pass through revenue portion, which is standard to many organizations.

There is also no monopoly exemption (See the XFL trying and also the NCAA exists right now as competition to the NFL)

The dues are tax-exempt too:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9342479/examining-nfl-tax-exempt-status-challenged-us-senator-tom-coburn

Trolly reply:

So?

Longer reply, since you probably remember my tax background and realize that the trolly reply is massive bait to bury you under a tax policy wall_of_text:

The dues are tax-exempt because they are for a suitable tax-exempt purpose under IRC.  It doesn't matter if they were taxable, as of 2013 the non-profit NFL corporation had a Net Asset (same thing as retained earnings/retained deficit in a for-profit) balance of -304 million dollars. (Useful information for all:  Non-profit tax filings are a matter of public record.  You can go to guidestar.org, set up a free account in under a minute, and then look up any Charity or non-profit tax return you desire.)

That is, to use GAAP for-profit terminology they had accumulated losses of $304 million.  They would have never, ever paid corporate income taxes even if they were a for-profit entity.  The only real taxes the government (federal, state or local) is missing out on is sales tax on certain purchases and some other minor taxes and fees on goods/services purchased for the tax-exempt purpose.

In actuality, forcing the league to be a for-profit would probably generate tax savings for the franchises as the franchises would act to utilize the $304 million in loss carryforwards to generate tax advantages, assuming a 35% Federal rate and using a guesstimate of 5% for the blended State corporate tax rate, that size loss would generate $100-120 million in tax offsets.

Summary:

- Stupid Congressman using silly rhetoric about corporate welfare/handouts to millionaires to establish bona fides as man of the people, since Tax Is Hard, and no one will actually check to see if the League is actually deriving tax benefits from the arrangement.

[Johny Cee]

The NFL has special tax-exempt status -- it's explicitly written into our tax code. This is a public issue.

No they don't. The only tax exempt portion is the pass through revenue portion, which is standard to many organizations.

There is also no monopoly exemption (See the XFL trying and also the NCAA exists right now as competition to the NFL)

This article would seem to disagree:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/how-the-nfl-fleeces-taxpayers/309448/

I only made it a page into that article because what I saw was nonsensical.  The author made an apples to oranges comparison in like the first paragraph.  If you are going to compare subsidies to stadium construction you should compare them to expected return from increased tax receipts due to tourism/boosts to the local economy from additional spending, and not to the Franchises charitable donations.

Are their plenty of municipalities that probably overpaid stadium subsidies based on the expected benefits to tourism/etc. dollars?  Yes, undoubtedly.  You then get into, though, the fact that many taxpayers are more than willing to throw money at a franchise to keep it in return for the status of having a professional sports franchise.  Personally, I say fuck pro sports, let them foot the bill...  but I'm probably in the vast minority and I live in New York, so those franchises are going to stay in one of the biggest media markets in the country.

I have no idea if the author tried to make that point because the shrill tone and manipulation of data in the first page indicated to me that the article wasn't worth reading.

[Ingmar]

The part about taxes was in the middle, roughly.

[Johny Cee]

The part about taxes was in the middle, roughly.

I skim read some more.  It's basically the same bullshit I responded to above, with the "it's a non-profit so they hide from taxxxxxeeeeesss!"  The League (as in the non-profit organization) operates at a loss so it wouldn't have paid taxes even if it was a for-profit.

What makes that article worse?  The author goes out of his way to mention that the Form 990s are public information, so he looked at the salaries....  but somehow the author didn't look at the earnings or the Net Assets (Deficit) that would show explicitly that the League doesn't make a profit.

Put it another way, the NBA recently dissolved their League so as to get out of the non-profit reporting requirements.  If the NBA really generated that much tax benefit from a non-profit organization running the League-wide administrative overhead, why the fuck would they do that?  The obvious answer is they wouldn't.  Honestly, it's really really easy to set up and run the same model with an LP (Limited partnership) or a for-profit corporation in the same role and not generate any tax disadvantage.  There would be some increased accounting and finance fees because you would have to better tax plan to around a zero taxable income, but I wouldn't complain. 


Also, the author harps on the salaries.  Yah, Goddell's is high.... but that is all Ordinary Income for his tax reporting purposes so he is paying the max Federal rate plus Medicare on it.  And it isn't outrageous compared to CEO salaries of comparably sized business in other industries.  Yah, CEO compensation is too high but that is a different topic.  Finally, that size salary might actually be necessary to assure impartiality considering the sizes of the Franchises he's dealing with.  Pay the Commissioner $100,000 and there would definitely be a concern that some of the bigger franchises could buy him off with a cushy post-retirement position.


The monopoly discussion is also  .  For Federal anti-trust purposes, it almost certainly isn't a monopoly.  Both college football and other professional sports would more than likely qualify as direct competition...  and since the bulk of the League's money comes from broadcasting rights, they could probably argue they compete against televised entertainment in general. 

Also, there doesn't seem to be any mechanism for the League to exercise monopolistic power to control prices beyond what a normal supply/demand curve would generate, ie I don't see how they could generate monopolistic rents. 


Again, the stadium subsidies and tax breaks for new stadiums?  I think those are legitimate complaints, and I'm all for paring that down to "normal" levels of economic development type of assistance any other new/expanding business usually gets (ie, government backed bonds at a slightly better than market rate, or some temporary property tax relief.)  But again, the issue is that voters in marginal cities for a franchise are willing to let their elected officials keep throwing money at a franchise to stick around as a status symbol rather than try to hardball the franchise and potentially lose it.  As pointed out in the article, the teams receiving the fewest benefits (NY, NY, NE) are also the teams in the biggest media markets for football so they could have the screws put to them and probably stay.

The author severely hurts his article by lacing it with lies, bad research, ignorance, and shrill whining.

[K9]

Kiko Alonso out for the season with a torn ACL.

I'm not a Bills fan, but damn... that team can't catch a break.

[shiznitz]

NFL Direct Ticket without a DirecTv sub! YES!

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/07/16/nfl-sunday-ticket-coming-to-ios-mac-for-2014-season-with-no-satellite-subscription-needed

I got this last year buy purchasing a special Madden edition.  I am going to pay a lot more this year for it, but, goddamn I am so close to ditching cable TV now.

[Paelos]

Kiko Alonso out for the season with a torn ACL.

I'm not a Bills fan, but damn... that team can't catch a break.

Is there a legitimate reason left to still have that team in Buffalo?

[Johny Cee]

Kiko Alonso out for the season with a torn ACL.

I'm not a Bills fan, but damn... that team can't catch a break.

Is there a legitimate reason left to still have that team in Buffalo?

It's a close jumping off point to move a franchise into Canada?

[Shannow]

Just an opinion piece but I have a feeling he's on the right track

The quest for continual growth will get them in trouble.

[Paelos]

I think the London thing is just the tip of the iceburg. They are already cramming Thursday night games down our throats this year. Those were getting garbage ratings on the NFL network. That's why they sold them to CBS. I have no idea why the hell, AFTER it's already been proven that MNF is a low-end product, that anybody would want Thursdays. I certainly don't give a shit about Jacksonville playing the Giants if there's a remotely interesting college game on Thursdays right now.

[Ginaz]

Kiko Alonso out for the season with a torn ACL.

I'm not a Bills fan, but damn... that team can't catch a break.

Is there a legitimate reason left to still have that team in Buffalo?

It's a close jumping off point to move a franchise into Canada?

Having an NFL team wouldn't work in Toronto, either.  They can barely get anyone in for the Toronto Argonaut CFL games.  The Argos won the Grey Cup in 2012 and yet in 2013 no one was showing up for their games.  Toronto is not a sports town, its not even a hockey town.  Its a Leaf town.  If its not the Maple Leafs, Toronto doesn't care.

[HaemishM]

The NFL in London would be a fucking disaster and that article is completely spot on. Five years and the novelty that gets Londoners out to see those games now would be gone, especially since NOBODY is going to want to play there. Why would a #1 pick franchise QB want to play in London? Travel times would be fucking awful. Free agents would have to be paid above the market to come there. That's not even to mention the whole kerfluffle about having different labor laws to deal with that might make the CBA null and void for the London team.

The NFL has gotten seriously greedy. 18 games? More playoff games? The draft in May? More Thursday night games? Fuck all that noise. It's too much.

[Ginaz]

The NFL in London would be a fucking disaster and that article is completely spot on. Five years and the novelty that gets Londoners out to see those games now would be gone, especially since NOBODY is going to want to play there. Why would a #1 pick franchise QB want to play in London? Travel times would be fucking awful. Free agents would have to be paid above the market to come there. That's not even to mention the whole kerfluffle about having different labor laws to deal with that might make the CBA null and void for the London team.

The NFL has gotten seriously greedy. 18 games? More playoff games? The draft in May? More Thursday night games? Fuck all that noise. It's too much.

The CFL plays an 18 game season but with only 2 pre-season games (this season it was only 1 due to a delayed CBA between the league and player's union).  If the NFL drops 2 of their 4 pre-season games, an 18 game season is doable.  I doubt that will happen, though, because they make a shit load of money off the pre-season so prepare for more injuries and shorter careers.

[Shannow]

I hope they do it all. 18 game seasons. Team in London. Games on every night of the week. Then watch them blow the fuck up.

[K9]

The NFL in London would be a fucking disaster and that article is completely spot on. Five years and the novelty that gets Londoners out to see those games now would be gone, especially since NOBODY is going to want to play there. Why would a #1 pick franchise QB want to play in London? Travel times would be fucking awful. Free agents would have to be paid above the market to come there. That's not even to mention the whole kerfluffle about having different labor laws to deal with that might make the CBA null and void for the London team.

It's going to happen though, there's too much potential money for the NFL to ignore. I don't get y'all american's stance that London is some sort of third-world purgatory either, it's bigger than every US city bar New York and has more professional sports franchises than any other city in the world (I think). It's a far nicer place to live than Cleveland, or Detroit, or Kansas City, or most of the places with NFL franchises and it has better weather too. It's got more entertainment and services for rich sports players than most cities with an NFL franchise. Why would a #1 pick want to come to London? Because they want to play fucking football that's why. As far as support goes, I think y'all underestimate the scale of interest in the NFL that goes beyond mere novelty. There are tens of thousands of dedicated football fans here in the UK, and many more in countries across Europe, many who would happily fly to London to watch a game or two. Football is played as a sport here - not well admittedly - but there are thousands of university students and amateurs playing football every year here in Europe, and they'd love to see the real thing.

The other argument I hear a lot is 'people in London already support a team, they wouldn't want to switch allegiances' but this is true of anywhere the NFL might expand that's not Lesotho or Bhutan. If you're interested in the NFL but live in LA, or Toronto, or Mexico City, or Austin, or San Antonio, or wherever, you probably already support a team, but odds are you'd swing behind the local team in time. This isn't an issue unique to London or anywhere.

I'm not going to argue that it'd be a resounding success, because there are a shit ton of logistical complexities - like you say, stuff like contract legalities and finances are going to be tricky to figure out - but I really don't buy into the whole "no player will ever want to move there, it's all doomed" mystique. Unless NFL players are uniquely precious, they'll go where they need to for work. Players in EVERY other sport already do this, and do it fine. Often moving to countries where they don't even speak the local language or whatever. To imply that players won't want to play, won't want to get paid, and won't want a shot at championships simply because they're based in London is daft.

[K9]

In more pertinent football related news, let's all take a moment to look at the Bill's offseason so far and pity them:

• Jairus Byrd leaves to go to the Saints
• Much loved and respected team owner dies
• Team gets sold
• Half the coaching staff leaves to go to Cleveland
• Team trades away a ton of first round picks for a rookie WR
• Team trades away one of the best value #1 receivers in the league for below-value
• Jim Kelly gets cancer
• Kiko Alonso tears ACL, out for the season
• Marcel Dareus arrested for possession of synthetic pot
• Marcel Dareus arrested for drag racing after he crashes his car into a tree
• Starting Left Tackle out of camp due to illness
• Replacement left tackle out of camp on day one with a hip injury

so... *pours one out*

[Chimpy]

The big issue with London is the travel times and timezone shift, a minimum 8-10 hour flight each way is almost 3 times as long as the longest current possible flight (Miami to Seattle) and the 5-8 hour shift in clock are going to hamper the performance of both the team in London, and the teams that travel to play there.

[K9]

I'll grant that, absolutely, although you're a bit high on some of the flight times. Most of the flights between London and East Coast locations (NY, DC, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Baltimore) are between 6-7.5 hours.

It'll need a lot of planning to make it work, but it's far from impossible.

[01101010]

How would playing there work in relation to needing a Visa? I assume players playing for the London team would need work Visas while they are over there and those are not easy nor quick to get. How would a player who gets traded to the London team clear that issue in a timely manner to be able to play immediately after being traded?

[Shannow]

Lets also not forget cost of living. The fact that a 22 year old kid from Texas may have troubles living in a FOREIGN country.
And the whole 'London is full of NFL fans!' . please for the love of god just stop, its not. And yes it does matter who they are fans of. An interesting fact, when the Raiders and Rams left LA , TV ratings for the NFL in LA went UP.

You know maybe the EPL should put a team in NY! Excellent idea! Lots of soccer fans there!

But again, please go ahead, put a team there, water down your product more.

[HaemishM]

Unless NFL players are uniquely precious, they'll go where they need to for work. Players in EVERY other sport already do this, and do it fine. Often moving to countries where they don't even speak the local language or whatever. To imply that players won't want to play, won't want to get paid, and won't want a shot at championships simply because they're based in London is daft.

In the instance you are talking about though, players moving to foreign countries aren't playing games where the travel involves international travel for half of their games. They are playing within local leagues. 8 games out of 16 would involve the London team making a seriously draining cross-continental flight then play a game and come back the very next day. Footballers who play for their international teams already take extra time after things like the World Cup for this reason alone.

I'd be all for the NFL doing another NFL Europe/World League experiment, so long as the travel times weren't stupid.

[Paelos]

If a player is getting a $14M a year contract in Dallas, or a $15M a year offer in London, I don't know why their agent would take the extra million for the hassle and cost of living, taxes, etc.

[shiznitz]

Because the agent gets paid a percent of gross?

[Cyrrex]

Yeah, but the key word there was "hassle".

I expect there would be grounds for calling these players in London formal expatriates, thereby getting around much of the tax issue and the increased burdend on the player.  Other companies do this all the time, no reason the NFL can't do it as well.

K9 - it is a well-known fact in American sports that players who are elite, or who want to be elite, very much tend to want to play in the Big Markets.  NY, Chicago, LA, East Coast in general, etc.  While you are correct that London would qualify as a big market by most definitions of the word, they would not be within the American market, and that makes all the difference.  Being in NY, for example, means you are in the market that the entire country watches.  Because all fucking eyes are on New York (and it is nauseating as fuck for the rest of the country).  So the player in question is exposed to 300 million people, and all that that entails (read: endorsements).  The same would not be true playing in London.  While the lifestyle for the player would be better than many American cities, the exposure to the national American media would be about as low as it gets.  I actually think being in Jacksonville might be better.

And yeah, travel.  The London team would be in constant jet lag mode.  And God help the players involved in trips to and from the West Coast.  10 hours minimum, and likely more for some.

[Paelos]

While that's true of other sports, I don't think the NFL positions itself that way at all. If anything the NFL has tried to go out of its way to decrease the provincial NY-LA-Boston crap and put the best teams on TV in the biggest markets.

Example, look at last year's Sunday night Football lineup when they had options to flex later in the year. Starting in Week 10 you had NOLA v. Dallas, Denver v. KC, Denver v. NE, NYG v. Washington, NOLA v. Carolina, Cincy v. Pitt, Philly v. Chicago, Philly v. Dallas.

When you look at those games, you see how the NFL was trying to position the best matchups with the biggest consequences on playoff standing, regardless of location. They don't do what ESPN does with baseball, and only put on LA-NY-BOS-STL in a rotation on their national broadcasts.

The London thing is a bad idea because of TV, frankly. You can't put them on Sunday Night or Monday Night or Thursday Night Football for a home game. It doesn't work.

[K9]

How would playing there work in relation to needing a Visa? I assume players playing for the London team would need work Visas while they are over there and those are not easy nor quick to get. How would a player who gets traded to the London team clear that issue in a timely manner to be able to play immediately after being traded?

As far as I recall sports players are a special category for work visas in the UK. Certainly visa issues haven't been particularly prevalent with all the importing of African and South American players we have done for football (soccer).

In the instance you are talking about though, players moving to foreign countries aren't playing games where the travel involves international travel for half of their games. They are playing within local leagues. 8 games out of 16 would involve the London team making a seriously draining cross-continental flight then play a game and come back the very next day. Footballers who play for their international teams already take extra time after things like the World Cup for this reason alone.

I'd be all for the NFL doing another NFL Europe/World League experiment, so long as the travel times weren't stupid.

I'm not trying to handwave the travel issue away, it's certainly a major hurdle in implementation, if not THE major hurdle. All the legal and tax issues can be dealt with with the infusion of sufficient money I'm sure.

I'm not really old enough to remember NFL Europe in it's prime, although I have been fortunate to get to know a few people who played for or worked in the league back in the day. My impression is that the main issue with NFLE is that it was a genuine B league and failed to capture people's imagination. I guess the NFL could try and make the leap and drop a whole four team division in Europe, although outside of London I'm not sure where you'd put teams. Germany would work well too, so either Frankfurt or Berlin, and then possibly Rome, but after that I suspect your city/market size starts to dry up rapidly.

Anyhow, I'm happy to watch the league creep up the number of International Series games each year, since I get to watch some football.

[Trippy]

The travel thing is not much worse than flying between the West and East coasts (the extra time zone differences are a bitch, though). And I would suspect they'll do something akin to what the Niners do now when they have back-to-back East coast games which is to stay in the US for back-to-back US games so they'll only have 4 - 5 trips to the US rather than 8.

[Nevermore]

An 8 hour time difference and 11 hour flight time between London and the US west coast would seem to make the whole idea of a team in London pretty ridiculous.

[K9]

Sammy Watkins catches a ball

[Paelos]

Still Buffalo. 

[Fordel]

Kiko Alonso out for the season with a torn ACL.

I'm not a Bills fan, but damn... that team can't catch a break.

Is there a legitimate reason left to still have that team in Buffalo?

It's a close jumping off point to move a franchise into Canada?

Having an NFL team wouldn't work in Toronto, either.  They can barely get anyone in for the Toronto Argonaut CFL games.  The Argos won the Grey Cup in 2012 and yet in 2013 no one was showing up for their games.  Toronto is not a sports town, its not even a hockey town.  Its a Leaf town.  If its not the Maple Leafs, Toronto doesn't care.

That's not fair to the Raptors and the TFC, which both have very good attendance and fan followings... and just like the Leafs, God only knows why. 

The Jays attendance is abysmal I'm sure, those seats are almost never full when I catch a game on TV. Those only fill up when they win, which they haven't since the 90s. It's a pure bandwagon.

The Argo's haven't had big fan followings since the days of Flutie and Pinball. The majority of football fans in the city would rather just pick a horse in the NFL for whatever reason. I'm almost certain more fans make the day trip to Buffalo then go to Argo games. Hell I'm half as certain that more fans make the day trip to buffalo then actually go to the 'home' games in Toronto for the Bills too. Most of the fun is in the journey. 



It wouldn't be about attendance though, it would be about how good of a TV deal the NFL could get from Rogers or Bell.

[Paelos]

Roddy White just signed a large extension. The Falcons are stupid.

I can't think of many teams that have a Top 10 WR contract that didn't get bit in the ass by the cap. Seattle jumps to mind with the Percy Harvey deal, but it's backloaded. Their 2013 number was miniscule to the cap.

[HaemishM]

Nothing like signing a 33 year old wideout to a 4-year extension. 

[WayAbvPar]

I can't believe Ray Rice only got 2 games. Smoke some pot and you get 1 year +, but knock your girlfriend unconscious on video and you get 2 games. Unfuckingreal.

In better news, Sidney Rice retired. Good riddance.