RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Waldron reports: "Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn (R) today introduced an amendment to the Marketplace Fairness Act that would end the practice of allowing professional sports leagues to qualify as tax-exempt organizations."

The Oakland Raiders would be affected by Senator Coburn's amendment. (photo: USA Today Sports)
The Oakland Raiders would be affected by Senator Coburn's amendment. (photo: USA Today Sports)

The NFL Is a Tax-Exempt Organization - But One Senator Wants to Change That

By Travis Waldron, ThinkProgress

28 April 13


klahoma Sen. Tom Coburn (R) today introduced an amendment to the Marketplace Fairness Act that would end the practice of allowing professional sports leagues to qualify as tax-exempt organizations, a move that would hit leagues like the National Football League, the Professional Golfers Association (PGA) Tour, and the National Hockey League, among others.

Since 1966, the tax code has allowed leagues to classify as 501(c)(6) charitable organizations - a classification used by trade and industry organizations - under the assumption that the leagues were promoting the general value of their sports. But Coburn's amendment asserts that the leagues are not non-profits engaged in the promotion of their sports but instead are businesses interested solely in the promotion of their business; that is, the NFL isn't so much concerned about promoting the general sport of football as it is concerned with promoting NFL football, because it is the NFL brand and the NFL teams and logos and products that make it a profitable business. The NFL, for instance, didn't seem interested in promoting the general spread of football when a competitor league, the United States Football League, was formed in 1983. Likewise, the PGA Tour, NHL, and other sports leagues serve to promote their brand of their sports, not the sport as a whole.

Further, the leagues hardly pay their executives as if they are non-profits. The NFL paid $51.5 million to just eight executives in 2010, according to Coburn, and other leagues are similar - PGA commissioner Tim Finchem made $5.2 million that year, while NHL commissioner Gary Bettman took home $4.3 million.

In his 2012 Waste Book that chronicled government waste, Coburn said that taxpayers were losing as much as $91 million a year subsidizing professional sports leagues because of their non-profit status:

The National Football League (NFL), the National Hockey League (NHL), and the Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA) classify themselves as non-profit organizations to exempt themselves from federal income taxes on earnings. Smaller sports leagues, such as the National Lacrosse League, are also using the tax status. Taxpayers may be losing at least $91 million subsidizing these tax loopholes for professional sports leagues that generate billions of dollars annually in profits. Taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize sports organizations already benefiting widely from willing fans and turning a profit, while claiming to be non-profit organizations.

The 501(c)(6) provision, specifically amended in 1966 to add "professional football leagues," states that "[n]o part of a business league's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual and it may not be organized for profit to engage in an activity ordinarily carried on for profit." That would seem a hard standard for most professional leagues to meet, given the amount of revenue they make and the benefits they provide to the people involved. Individual team owners, in fact, benefit substantially from the league's structure and even its classification as a non-profit organization.

NFL teams pay membership dues totaling roughly $6 million per team, but they are allowed to write those off for tax purposes as donations to a charitable organization. As Andrew Delaney explained in the Vermont Law Review in 2010, the NFL, which collected $192 million in revenue largely through membership dues in 2009, then pours much of that money back into a stadium fund that allows owners to access interest-free loans as long as they secure taxpayer financing for either new stadiums or improvements to existing facilities. The NFL's dues, then, go almost solely toward the enrichment of its franchise owners even as they are exempt from federal taxation (and often from state and local taxation as well). Taxpayers get hit on two fronts: not only do they lose out on federal tax revenues, they also end up footing the bill for new stadiums and stadium improvements (most recently in Atlanta and Minnesota, with ongoing efforts in Miami and other cities). But all of the benefit, much of which comes from the tax-exempt status, goes to owners and the NFL, as Delaney explained:

Technically, the city owns the stadium. Personal seat licenses or PSLs are sold through a public agency, tax-free. Profits are then used to pay down the owner’s share of the NFL loan. The money from the PSLs never goes directly to the teams, though the teams save millions of dollars in taxes and the loan from the NFL is paid down significantly, providing a very significant benefit to the owners.

Removing the tax-exempt status would force the leagues to acknowledge the reality that they are businesses, and they would be taxed as such. For the NFL, that would mean that membership dues and assessments would no longer be tax exempt, according to Delaney, and the profits run through the NFL's or PGA's tax-exempt organizations no longer would be either (the NFL runs multiple for-profit organizations, such as NFL Films, in addition to its non-profit partner). Instead, the leagues would be taxed much like corporations, and a wide range of tax write-offs would be available just as they are to other corporations. They would still be able to operate the charitable organizations they already have as tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities.

It's unclear how much of a benefit ending the tax-exempt status of professional sports leagues would bring directly to taxpayers, largely because the complexity of how the leagues have structured their businesses makes it hard to know how much they benefit directly from being tax-exempt (Major League Baseball claims that giving up its tax-exempt status in 2007 had no effect on its annual taxes, but there's no way to know for sure). And it's unlikely we will find out soon, since Coburn's amendment isn't likely to receive a vote when the Senate finally takes up the Marketplace Fairness Act sometime this week.

That's a shame though, because a vote and legitimate debate about Coburn's amendment would benefit the public, which often doesn't get the full picture from sports leagues, owners, and lawmakers about how much of their money goes to subsidizing the sports we watch. Taxpayers in the past have been outraged when they find out how much subsidies for new stadiums are going to ultimately cost them, but by then, it's almost always too late. And while the leagues we subsidize - either directly or indirectly - are popular among fans, whether those same fans are willing to shell out their tax dollars to help wealthy owners and franchises become even wealthier is impossible to know, since we almost never receive robust and honest debate about those subsidies. Coburn's amendment is a chance to at least throw that into the national conversation about tax reform - and it's a chance lawmakers shouldn't be so hesitant to take. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+53 # hd70642 2013-04-28 09:25
They are not a religious organization nor do they peform any public good like charity medical or education. So why should they get a tax break ?
+22 # dickbd 2013-04-28 15:23
Although I like football, I agree. However, in this modern age of enlightenment (well, as compared to some of the dark days of the past!), perhaps religions should not be tax free either.

I think most of us recognize now that their activities are rarely for the public good. The Catholic advertising killed a possible euthanasia referendum in California. And a coalition religious group, mostly Mormon, helped pass a referendum discriminating against gays.

And that's not counting the anti birth control and anti-abortion activity that is common to so many religious groups!
-1 # 666 2013-05-01 17:11
i totally agree that they should be taxed (and taxed like hell) -- but that's not the real point here. an okie republican introduces this amendment to _raise taxes_ on some of the wealthy elites... am I the only one who reads this right?

it sounds like a shakedown to me. nfl tweet: "ok tom, what do you really want? a $5 million campaign donation, some blow and a planeload of naked cheerleaders?"
+51 # Vegan_Girl 2013-04-28 09:35
OMG I agree with Senator Coburn! And because of that, I feel a little bit dirty.
+42 # AnastasiaP 2013-04-28 11:36
Just what I was thinking! This may be the first and only time I've ever agreed with this man. But halleluia for this! Sports fans comprise a small minority of the citizens of counties like mine that are deep in hock from multiple stadiums from which only the billionaire owners benefit. Meanwhile, our schools and infrastructure crumble, and most of us don't care about what goes on in those stadiums. It's about time to treat this as the profit-making business it is and let it be subsidized on the backs of those who do care.
+22 # Lolanne 2013-04-28 13:02
Quoting Vegan_Girl:
OMG I agree with Senator Coburn! And because of that, I feel a little bit dirty.

My sentiments exactly! But beyond that, Coburn is a real hypocrite. Why should anybody believe he really gives a damn about the tax status of sports organizations when he utters nary a peep about the fact that big business loots the government constantly by finding ways to wiggle out of paying any taxes at all???
+49 # ThinkRodan 2013-04-28 10:00
It was a BIG SURPRISE to me that the NFL money-making machine was TAX EXEMPT! Which means that the mom & pop public pays the salaries of these OVERPAID JOCKS! What suckers we are to permit this TRAVESTY of monetary fairness! CHANGE THIS UNFAIR LAW!
+13 # dickbd 2013-04-28 15:15
Yeah, but as one brave sportscaster here once said, "Whenever there is a dispute between the players and owners, always go with the players. Because, as bad as the players may be, the owners are that much worse!" That's easy to believe because the owners are part of the one percent. And we know what a fine group most of them are!
+12 # jwb110 2013-04-28 10:28
+24 # tswhiskers 2013-04-28 10:57
I find it strange and refreshing that a Rep. senator should sponsor a bill (any bill) recommending that all professional sports leagues pay taxes. When one considers the public costs of building sports arenas and the high cost of even cheap tickets and concession stands it is clear that professional sports are more than anything else, money-making propositions. Owners and players are obviously not interested in being models of sportsmanlike behavior for our children, nor do they feel any sense of obligation to those taxpayers who built their pricey arenas at which only the wealthy can afford the ticket prices as a rule. Even rabid sports fans should see the sense of this bill and insist that in this time of lowered budgets and job losses, the billion-dollar sports industry should pay its share of taxes if for no other reason than to in part reimburse the public.
+5 # Underledge 2013-04-28 11:47
Follow the money trail. It won't happen.
+18 # Citizen Mike 2013-04-28 16:44
+7 # dkonstruction 2013-04-29 08:13
If the sports teams want to maintain their tax exempt status they should be publicly owned (which is also the only way that public tax dollars should be used to subsidize the building of new stadiums).
+6 # cwens 2013-04-29 11:41
I can't believe a Republican has a good idea but I'll sign on to this one. They should repeal ALL tax credits and start over. Make these orgs. prove they do public good. Like ALEC??
+4 # Working Class 2013-04-29 17:11
I never thought I would say this, but....I think I agree with Tom Coburn. Damn, when did I fall through the rabbit hole?
+1 # jamal49 2013-04-30 04:05
yeah, i just posted the same. maybe i better check the tap water or something.
+1 # jamal49 2013-04-30 04:05
Well, will wonders never cease! Something Tom Coburn and I agree on! Long overdue legislation!
+2 # griffey1 2013-04-30 21:11
I've never understood the devotion of fans to their home teams, which usually consist of overpaid, babied, professionals who could give a crap about the their loyal fans.
However, this thievery by the NFL, et al will continue, as no bill ever passes that benefits the American taxpayer.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.