Web Only / Features » October 4, 2013
NFL Scores Big With Tax-Exempt Status
How football symbolizes economic unfairness in America.
If the story of special tax status and profligate tax subsidies sounds familiar, that's because it is the same tale that we've heard countless times in this new Gilded Age. It is the tale of yet another set of politically connected plutocrats getting bailed out while ordinary citizens suffer through a weak economy.
Sports metaphors are the world's universal vernacular because the games we play can be such easy-to-understand symbols of society's larger conflicts. In sports-obsessed America, our football cliches are particularly sacrosanct—we use them to describe everything from rhetorical fights in politics to physical fights in wars. So it is quite convenient that professional football now epitomizes one of the country's biggest problems of all: our government's unfair economic policies.
This is the logical takeaway from a series of recent revelations about the National Football League's unfairly privileged status under the law. Mind you, the league's whopping $9.5 billion in annual revenue is not, unto itself, proof that things are unfair. What's unfair is a tax code that permits the league to simultaneously rake in that cash, enjoy tax-exempt status and profit from ongoing public subsidies.
How, you ask, is a megacorporation like the NFL a tax-exempt organization? Businessweek reports that thanks to loopholes in federal law, the organization is categorized as a 501(c)(6) like “chambers of commerce, trade groups, real estate boards, and a handful of other sports leagues.” The magazine notes that “this is a bit like McDonald’s calling itself a trade association promoting the interests of its 14,000 U.S. restaurants” only “the NFL distributes all its revenue back to the teams—after covering expenses such as rent, officiating crews, and Commissioner Roger Goodell’s $30 million salary.”
At the same time, states and cities are giving the league hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of stadium subsidies. In his recent must-read article on the scam, The Atlantic's Gregg Easterbrook cites Harvard University data showing that “70 percent of the capital cost of NFL stadiums has been provided by taxpayers, not NFL owners.” The report also shows that “many cities, counties, and states also pay the stadiums’ ongoing costs, by providing power, sewer services, other infrastructure, and stadium improvements.”
Incredibly, these expenditures continue even as states face crushing budget shortfalls. As just one example, Easterbrook points out that “the Minnesota legislature, facing a $1.1 billion budget deficit, extracted $506 million from taxpayers as a gift” to the Vikings for their new stadium.
If the story of special tax status and profligate tax subsidies sounds familiar, that's because it is the same tale that we've heard countless times in this new Gilded Age. It is the tale of yet another set of politically connected plutocrats getting bailed out while ordinary citizens suffer through a weak economy. Only in this iteration of the tale, it isn't some faceless corporation that benefits—it is America's most idolized sports league that gets to shroud the largesse in hometown football jerseys.
The good news is that at least one legislator is trying to right some of these wrongs—and, unfortunately for the NFL, it is not a lawmaker who can be deemed a socialist and then marginalized. Instead, it is archconservative Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn who is proposing the PRO Sports Act to prevent professional sports leagues that make over $10 million a year from being recognized as tax-exempt organizations.
Casting his legislation as an attack on tax loopholes that intensify economic inequality, Coburn says: “Working Americans are paying artificially high (tax) rates in order to subsidize special breaks for sports leagues—that's hardly fair.”
The Oklahoma lawmaker is exactly right to frame his crusade this way. When the tax code extends special exemptions and subsidies to the richest corporations and CEOs, the rest of us have to come up with the lost money. Consequently, the economy tilts even further in favor of the already wealthy.
America may love football, but that's far too high a price to pay for a game.
What do you want to see from our coverage of the 2020 presidential candidates?
As our editorial team maps our plan for how to cover the 2020 Democratic primary, we want to hear from you:
It only takes a minute to answer this short, three-question survey, but your input will help shape our coverage for months to come. That’s why we want to make sure you have a chance to share your thoughts.
David Sirota, an In These Times senior editor and syndicated columnist, is a staff writer at PandoDaily and a bestselling author whose book Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now—Our Culture, Our Politics, Our Everything was released in 2011. Sirota, whose previous books include The Uprising and Hostile Takeover, co-hosts "The Rundown" on AM630 KHOW in Colorado. E-mail him at firstname.lastname@example.org, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.
if you like this, check out:
- Which Candidates’ Climate Plans Put Justice First? We Break It Down.
- How Dare Samantha Power Scrub the Yemen War From Her Memoir
- Whose Grid? Our Grid! Chicago’s Campaign To Put Electricity Under Public Control
- Here’s the Radical Housing Plan That All 2020 Candidates Should Embrace
- The U.S.-Backed Coalition Can’t Agree on Why It’s Bombing Yemen