News Flash: The NFL Pays Taxes!

Did you catch the surprising news about the National Football League (NFL) last week?

No, we’re not referring to any of the results of the college draft. There weren’t any surprises there at all. The top two marquee quarterbacks in the college game, as expected, were selected #1 and #2.

And no, we’re not referring to any announcement about the NFL’s Deflate Gate scandal. No announcement whatsoever was made. Apparently, the League is no rush to release any information about its investigation into that affair.

Instead, we’re referring to the NFL’s announcement that it has decided to start paying income taxes on its earnings. Before last week, it had always opted to avoid any such taxation liability.

But hold on! Wait a minute. Huh? How can that possibly be true?

Why hasn’t the most profitable professional sports league on earth been paying income taxes on its earnings? And why has it been given a choice to “opt in” or “opt out” of the tax system throughout its existence?

Perhaps surprisingly, the American regulatory system permits various types of nonprofit organizations to declare themselves exempt from income taxation, even though they may not serve any social charitable purpose. Under Section 527 of the federal tax code, for instance, political organizations that accept financial contributions on behalf of candidates can file for exemption from income taxes.

Although such organizations may be “profitable” enterprises in a colloquial sense, they (in theory, at least) pass all of their available funds to their favored candidates. Thus, the tax code treats them as pass-through entities, and not as entities that are seeking to earn taxable profits on an independent basis.

Likewise, the NFL has always been treated as a “trade association” entity that exists to help its member teams optimize their profits, and not as an entity that is seeking to optimize its own independent earnings. That’s why the League, for instance, distributes its television revenues to its 32 professional teams.

But why did the NFL agree to start paying taxes on its profits at all? Why didn’t it simply continue its status quo tax exempt arrangement with the Internal Revenue Service? Apparently, because the League has always passed through so much of its revenue to its member teams, its potential tax liability in any given year can be characterized as “a pittance,” and is expected to remain so in the future.

More importantly, by electing to pay annual income taxes, the League can avoid disclosing certain sensitive information to the public. For instance, the salaries of the NFL’s senior officers will no longer be available for public inspection, now that the League is foregoing its tax exempt status.

So although we might be surprised that the NFL will now start paying income taxes, its motivation for doing so should be no surprise at all. After all, it’s not as if the League is acting upon an altruistic desire to contribute more resources to society. Instead, it appears to have chosen to pay taxes as the result of a sober business assessment that the benefit of keeping sensitive information confidential exceeds the cost of any annual tax liability.

Shrewd, eh?

The NFL: Forgetting Its Business Model

When did it happen? When did the National Football League, the most successful professional sports organization in the United States, suddenly lose its ability to manage its own affairs after thriving for almost a century?

Many believe that this past month (or even this past week) has been the worst time in the history of the League.  And for good reason: public protests have recently exploded over a startling series of violently criminal acts, debilitating player injuries, and highly questionable corporate behavior.

But the origins of such recent outcomes might be traced back to 2013. Last year, after all, was the time that the NFL first appeared to decisively step away from its traditionally successful sports business model.

Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to describe its decision as “intentionally forgetting” its classic model. After all, at its essence, the traditional game of football generates far more violent physical contact than any other major sport in the United States.

That’s why, for much of its existence, the game was only played on Sunday afternoons. And that’s why each game initially featured (and still features) a half time break midway through its sixty minute period.

League officials always knew that the human body can only sustain “just so much” violent activity before it requires resting and healing time. Weekday, Saturday, and halftime (on game day) rest periods were thus mandated for recuperation purposes.

But last year, the NFL announced an unprecedented agreement for a television network to broadcast Thursday (i.e. midweek) games throughout the season. And earlier this year, the League boldly asked performers at its Super Bowl half time show to begin paying fees in exchange for media exposure.

So what should we make of a full slate of midweek games, staged for the benefit of television networks? And an even more drastically elongated half-time show for the purpose of showcasing musical acts?

Such activities are inconsistent with a traditional business model that is dedicated to placing the fittest (and the most appealing) players on the field to compete for athletic victories. Nevertheless, they are perfectly consistent with a model that is dedicated to optimizing television ratings, music sales, and other media revenue streams.

So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that the NFL’s recent travails betray a surprising forgetfulness of its traditional game-dominant business model. Instead, the League has recently chosen a media-dominant business model, a strategy that is now impacting its fortunes accordingly.