They're a 501c6, not a 501c3. C6 is not intended to be a charitable organization, but to act as a trade organization, business league, etc. They quite clearly meet the definition of what a 501C6 is intended to be, and it's also quite clear that they aren't "dodging" anything in the way of taxes.

If there's a discussion to be had on the matter, it's whether or not 501C6s even ought to exist, or whether there ought to be constraints on their existence (e.g., in order to encourage business development, a 501C6 may exist until captured revenues reach a fixed amount, or something to that extent) but it's clear that the NFL is not only eligible, but the very archetype for what a C6 organization ought to be.

"When you consider how many pro stadiums – like MetLife MET -1.23% Stadium in the swamps of Jersey – are at least partially subsidized by public dollars, a Federal tax exemption for the professional league – really a joint venture of 32 other businesses and their investors – seems obscene. As Nina Ippolito wrote in PolicyMic:

As a 501(c)6, the NFL isn’t supposed to engage in business “ordinarily carried on for profit.” Apparently, licensing exorbitantly priced apparel, granting broadcast rights, and running an entire television network don’t count as profitable endeavors."

That's confusing distinct concerns. The tax exemption status is federal, while each of those stadium negotiations is done at the state level, and in cahoots with the league owners and teams of those states, not the "NFL" organization at large.

> As a 501(c)6, the NFL isn’t supposed to engage in business “ordinarily carried on for profit.” Apparently, licensing exorbitantly priced apparel, granting broadcast rights, and running an entire television network don’t count as profitable endeavors."

The "NFL" organization doesn't do those things. It is, basically, just a payment gateway for the teams and owners. By that same argument, you could assert that Patrick Collision and Stripe are selling televisions (assuming at least one of their customers is selling televisions). They aren't, they're just the gateway.

The league entity is funded by the teams and the board, not as a rake from those teams.

I'm rather confused as to how you plan to convincingly argue that a company organizing a purely for entertainment sports league should be exempt from paying taxes.

Stripe pays taxes that they collect. So does the NFL. Stripe pays taxes on its earnings. So does the NFL. Stripe does not pay taxes on the billed amount. Neither does the NFL.

If a Stripe merchant pays taxes on a $5,000 television, does that count as $5,000 worth of taxable income for Stripe? No, it does not. Stripe collects their service charge, which works out to be $145.30. That is Stripe's taxable income.

You're acting like the NFL is somehow responsible for paying taxes on the billions of dollars that it collects revenues on. It isn't, nor is Stripe. If it weren't tax exempt, it would only be responsible for the fees it keeps, which is equivalent to the Stripe service fees. The NFL member teams are responsible for paying the taxes on the billions, which they already do, and don't appear to be evading, or even attempting to evade at all.

As for whether or not the portion of money that the NFL league 'keeps' (they don't actually keep any, they act as a clearing house for the teams, and pay out 100% of earnings minus overhead, which they make 0 profits from), the IRS seems to have created a class of business that matches exactly the "entertainment sports league" definition, and they have made that category tax exempt.

So long as the 501c6 exists under the definition that it does, the NFL clearly qualifies to be one.

So, recapping from my earlier reply, the issue isn't one of whether or not the NFL is tax dodging. They aren't. Not even remotely. The issue is whether or not there should be such a thing as the 501C6. I, personally, am of the opinion that it needn't exist at all. But it does, and it's tax exempt, and that's not the NFL's fault.

To reduce it to absurdity: If the IRS created a category of person that is caucasian, wears Threadless T-Shirts, wears New Balance shoes, and that enjoys drinking Victory Golden Monkey Ale, then I clearly belong to that category.

If the IRS makes that category of person tax exempt, then I guess I can stop paying taxes.

The argument that most people seem to make is that I don't deserve to belong to this tax exempt category, which is wrong. I meet all the criteria. I wear Threadless shirts. I am caucasian. I really love Victory Golden Monkey Ale. Saying I don't belong in this category is the wrong argument.

The right argument is either:

- this special category should not exist, or

- this special category should not be tax exempt

FWIW, I'm not trying to defend the NFL. But, if you're going to condemn them, i means understanding what you're condemning. If they NFL collected 12 billion dollars last year, then they paid taxes on $12 billion dollars. The teams then each put aside a certain amount of money, collectively totaling around $200 million, to fund the NFL league. The money's already been taxed once, but the $200 million that the league "earned" through these payments is not, because it's allocated to a trade organization, which the IRS considers tax exempt.

The NFL shouldn't qualify as a non-profit because they promote only NFL football, not football in general. It's qualified as a trade association, but it shouldn't be, as it's clearly a for-profit corporation managing a brand.

First of all, there are plenty of valid uses of 501C6 that the NFL could meet the definition for, but beyond that, they actually do promote a lot of football that has no ties (or at least, only tangential relationship) to the NFL, like Play 60, and working with Peewee league football, etc.