When I started playing American football ten years ago… wait, damn, it’s fifteen years ago… a lineman friend of mine told me he’s Green Bay Packers fan, because it’s the only municipal owned* team in the leage, which he thought was cool.
So did I, so I became a Packers fan and then they went and won the Superbowl, so I felt like a dork. Hard to explain.
Anyhow, in what way (if any) is the Packers franchise ownership unique in the NFL, and so, in what way? Because it doesn’t seem to be… well, “municipal owned”…?
My attempt to translate from Swedish; probably not correct, but hopefully enough.
Also, if I could, I’d change the title from … NHL … to … NFL …
The Packers are the only team that is itself a publicly-traded company, while most teams are owned by a single person, partnership, or a private company. Furthermore, the corporation itself is a non-profit, so shareholders do not get dividends. (Wikipedia article)
Publicly-traded corporations do own other sports teams as subsidiaries.
Here is a list of current owners of NFL teams. What that list doesn’t say is that all the teams are part of an incorporated business entity, and the listed owners own the corresponding corporation.
Slight nitpick: the club is a publicly OWNED company, but it is not traded publicly (meaning OTC or through an exchange). Sales of shares are arranged privately. I’m not sure how the subscriptions for new shares are handled, though I presume it is done privately as well.
The Packers only offer new shares occasionally. The last time they did was after Super Bowl XXXI. If you wanted to buy a Packers share today you’d have to find a shareholder willing to part with it.
As the Wiki article states, this ownership structure is illegal in the NFL now with the Packers grandfathered in as an exception.
It’s also worth mentioning that the ownership structure is probably the reason the Packers remained in Green Bay. One rich owner probably would have moved them to a bigger city decades ago.
I believe it’s also the case that most of those shares are owned by residents of Green Bay.
Why would that be? I don’t think I’ve ever met a football fan who disliked the arrangement Green Bay has, and I don’t see why it should be ruled out for other teams.
They sell out games in Wisconsin. A private owner would probably prefer them to sell out games in Texas or California. And most private owners negotiate favorable financial agreements from cities that want a local team.
Green Bay is not a huge market. A single owner would have taken the team to 2 or 3 other cities by now.
Build me a new stadium. Give me all the parking and concessions. And tax breaks. I don’t want to pay taxes. Provide police to regulate traffic. Then I will stay.
until another city offers more.
By the way ,I expect you to be loyal to the team.
WAG, but deep down the owners want the freedom to be able to move their teams when a more favorable situation elsewhere arises while eliminating as much resistance by the existing fanbase as possible. Say the Bills’ ownership situation changes and the new owner wants to move the team. I bet the Bills fans would jump at the chance to collectively buy the team, and the possibility of doing so would be a PR nightmare for the new owner who seeks to take the team away from its fans. After all, why should the owner get to move the team for a favorable new stadium deal when the local fans are willing to buy the team to keep it?
It’s not a very wild guess, and frankly I don’t think it’s very deep down either. The (for-profit) owners don’t want any more non-profit teams making them look bad in their quest to turn fan loyalty into personal profits.
Well, OK, then what’s the rationale for that rule? Surely the owners don’t say “It’s because I want the freedom to be as money-grubbing as I want”, do they? There must be some argument about how this arrangement is best for the integrity of the game, at least for public consumption.
Not really. A loyal fanbase is less important when there are other cities eager to adopt a team of their own. The owners like using the threat of relocation even if they don’t move because it allows them to extract favorable concessions from their current market. Profitability is still the #1 priority for the owners; they leave it to the fans and the media to worry about the integrity of the game.
There are 5.6 million people in the entire state of Wisconsin. Los Angeles County (for instance) itself has close to 10 million residents. The excess money made on marketing jerseys, beer coozies and foam fingers alone would make it more profitable in a more densely populated area. And that’s not even considering the tax breaks a team could extort out of a destination city.
I don’t know if this has as much effect in football as it does for basketball or baseball, but moving to a slightly more hospitable clime might help lure free agents to a city. Everything else being equal, I imagine most players would rather spend their winters in Tampa, Miami or San Diego than Green Bay.
Owners don’t get any benefit from merchandise sales by their individual team. That goes to profit sharing and is split by all teams. And, the Green Bay Packers, are, I assure you, worth more in merchandising than the Los Angeles Relocators. LA already has a football team for merchandising purposes.
Also, the Packers got their new taxpayer funded stadium with luxury boxes, without having to threaten to move.
Nitpick here, but “Illegal” is not the proper word. It would not be against the law if another such entity became an NFL team owner. NFL rules are not laws, they are just the group’s own internal rules regarding membership. The NFL can and does govern itself and determine who or what can own an NFL team, so long as it doesn’t discriminate based on race, religion or national origin. If it discriminated based on those things, then that would be illegal under U.S. law.