That's what I meant. Apparently it changed. But so what? The league itself made enough money to pay Roger Goodell $44M in 2013. As a non-profit.
I kind of figured you did, but I wanted to underscore the difference because I feel like this fact is usually trotted out for (and gets) a knee jerk.
To be fair, I think it's a dumb state of affairs too, but overhyping problems is often counterproductive.
Well, I do think it (was) dumb, but I also didn’t bring it up to show a big problem. I just wanted a counter-example to the claim that profits are limited at non-profits.
The Green Bay Packers are a not for profit...its the only team not privately owned by billionaires.
Thanks. Not sure how I missed that. Regardless, the point still stands. Non-profit just means profit isn't its primary goal, but rather generally some mission. A non-profit can make oodles of money, but if it closes up shop, it can't be distributed to the "owners." It has to go to another non-profit.
The NFL had a specific exemption added to the tax code just for it, so it really isn't a good example anyway. Nobody else could form such a "non-profit" without a literal act of Congress.