Ownership groups NFL vs. NHL

[John Flyers Fan]

Not sure how much of a difference this makes, but every owner of an NFL team is either an individual or a family, I believe that this is the only sports league that can claim this to be true.


The NHL has a number of teams owned by corporations: Disney, Comcast, MSG etc. etc.

Click to read more...

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

Doesn't Green Bay have some sort of unusual public ownership scheme?

That is an interesting point, though. I'd never thought about it.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Doesn't Green Bay have some sort of unusual public ownership scheme?

That is an interesting point, though. I'd never thought about it.

Yes, Green Bay is a unique situation, read more about it here:
http://www.packers.com/history/fast_facts/stock_history/

 

[nyr7andcounting]

It is a huge difference. The NFL doesn't allow corporate ownership what so ever, and that's a good thing. There are many things a corporation can do in the NHL that NFL owners can't, and in my opinion a league is better off without the corps.

 

[jacketracket*]

It is a huge difference. The NFL doesn't allow corporate ownership what so ever, and that's a good thing. There are many things a corporation can do in the NHL that NFL owners can't, and in my opinion a league is better off without the corps.

Agreed.

Although there is always an exception *cough ... Mike Brown ... cough*.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

It is a huge difference. The NFL doesn't allow corporate ownership what so ever, and that's a good thing. There are many things a corporation can do in the NHL that NFL owners can't, and in my opinion a league is better off without the corps.

Both Fords of the Lions (Williams Sr and Jr) are also on the Ford Motor Co board of Directors. But Ford Motor company doesn't own the Lions though.

 

[CarlRacki]

It is a huge difference. The NFL doesn't allow corporate ownership what so ever, and that's a good thing. There are many things a corporation can do in the NHL that NFL owners can't, and in my opinion a league is better off without the corps.

I think you're overstating your case. Corporate ownerships of professional sports teams certainly can muddy the waters when it comes to some revenue issues, but in and of itself it is not a bad thing. There are corporate owners in the NBA and MLB and it hasn't been a major source of problems for either league.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

I think you're overstating your case. Corporate ownerships of professional sports teams certainly can muddy the waters when it comes to some revenue issues, but in and of itself it is not a bad thing. There are corporate owners in the NBA and MLB and it hasn't been a major source of problems for either league.

That's all I am talking about here. Corporate ownerships have greater ability muddy the waters when it comes to revenue issues and economic issues affecting the league. Therefore if there were less corporate ownerships I feel that the league would be better off.

 

[futurcorerock]

Same case with Mcconnell and the BlueJackets. He's in charge of a big hospital chain in Columbus, though neither his company nor Nationwide Insurance own the team.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Same case with Mcconnell and the BlueJackets. He's in charge of a big hospital chain in Columbus, though neither his company nor Nationwide Insurance own the team.

Yes this is the best case scenario. Obviously all of these owners own other companies, that's how they have enough capital to purchase the teams. But when an owner is allowed to own a team as wel as a company that's directly related to, or owns, the team than it is not a good situation.