OTish Why Arent NFL NBA MLB Teams Publically Held/TradedCorporations (and should they be)

[Michael Jackson]

Is it a coincidence that, from what I can see, the Packers are among the best-run organizations in football? They seem to have a longer-term view than most teams, for some reason. Not trying to ask a loaded question, just wondering if those who know more about the inner workings than I do share my impression, or have opinions as to how their structure affects the product, if at all.

I'd guess it is coincidence. I do think they are run well, and I do think they consistently have good football people. However, I don't think the structure is how they arrive at those things, nor does the structure guarantee a team 3 generational quality QBs in a row (Starr, Favre, Rodgers).

As I said, in the end, it's a zero sum game, the overall quality is going to add up to the exact same in the league no matter what you do.

Are any of those public shares voting shares? I thought they weren’t.

[dougthonus]

Are any of those public shares voting shares? I thought they weren’t.

I don't know how it would work for the Packers, but it strikes me about as likely as me making a difference with my voting shares in any other publicly held company I own. None.

You could vote to replace the board perhaps, but generally, you're never going to get enough small voters to go against a few gigantic minority holders (presuming that there isn't a group that collectively works together and owns 50.1% outright anyway). If you do, you replace the board, whom then elects a new president/CEO or whatever, and then that guy can now make changes with the GM whom could then make changes with whatever else.

But you're 3 tiers away from making the change you care about, and the odds of you being able to know anything about the board members you want in power are basically 0 anyway.

[KissedByaRose1]

Are any of those public shares voting shares? I thought they weren’t.

I don't know how it would work for the Packers, but it strikes me about as likely as me making a difference with my voting shares in any other publicly held company I own. None.

You could vote to replace the board perhaps, but generally, you're never going to get enough small voters to go against a few gigantic minority holders (presuming that there isn't a group that collectively works together and owns 50.1% outright anyway). If you do, you replace the board, whom then elects a new president/CEO or whatever, and then that guy can now make changes with the GM whom could then make changes with whatever else.

But you're 3 tiers away from making the change you care about, and the odds of you being able to know anything about the board members you want in power are basically 0 anyway.

I'm a Packers shareholder - you have no real power whatsoever and the stuff you vote on a couple times of year isn't of real substance. Best part about it is the CEO/President of the org has both term and age limits so if we get an awful one we don't have to live with him forever unlike a Reinsdorf or a Dolan. It's really fun to throw out when i'm drunk arguing at bars though saying i'm an owner...

[ChettheJet]

I'm sure not big business but what you're griping about is that sports is big business and they don't want everybody knowing how much their business is truly worth and how little they pay in taxes as a business and the individual owners. The teams own the league, hire their commissioner who administers the competition and manages the league business like TV contracts.

Not many here are NASCAR fans but Jordan's anti trust lawsuit shows the difference. NASCAR was a sanctioning body that scheduled the races made up and enforced the rules, charged the track to get races and paid the competitors. NASCAR was formed in 1949 by Big Bill France and continued to be owned by members of the France family. There was a separate publicly traded company the International Speedway Corporation, shares in which were owned or controlled by member of the France family. That company owned several racetracks and in the 90's bought and built more. What that started to come down to is NASCAR in getting a sanctioning fee from the tracks they own are paying themselves, when they distribute the TV money to tracks in many cases they are paying themselves. And they can do that with no one watching. There were and are still tracks owned by other companies or individuals.

The teams that compete are individually owned and run, they go out and find those sponsors you see on the cars. They aren't franchises, they do have charters which guarantee equal shares but they have no vote in what those payouts are or how things are done. NASCAR can disapprove of an owner but it owns no race teams. For decades the individual tracks made their own TV deals, some better than others with a variety of networks. Things worked but finally some saw it could be way bigger.

There came a point when NASCAR worked with the tracks to negotiate the TV rights for all the races and pay the tracks. Not long after that the France family via NASCAR bought out the shares of ISC and it became a privately held part of NASCAR.

That's the NBA, NFL, MLB etc connection, NASCAR had two companies, one publicly traded one privately owned and went to one privately owned because that was the better way.

So Jordan's lawsuit makes the claim that NASCAR by owning the series and most of the racetracks, controls the TV money payout has an unfair dominant position in the sport being able to dictate to the teams what they get paid. The major difference is the teams in stick and ball sport, are partners in their leagues and don't have to sue to get their fair share because they are at no disadvantage.

[sco]

I thought there was a very favorable tax treatment (IIRC the ability to deduct the entire purchase price over 15 years), which I think may have more value to very wealthy individuals than corporations.