I guess I can say that by reading this statement you are hereby prohibited from ever suing me for any reason in any court of law. That doesn't mean you can't still sue me though...
I feel like lying about legal obligations falls into the "yelling fire in a theater" exception. Especially because it's a commercial broadcast. I'd go so far as to say that it's no different than other contexts in which lying is illegal (insurance fraud, etc).
You are the expert and not me but isn't this really like a scorched earth technique? Essentially regardless of whether or how much of a leg that they have to stand on they come at this full force with all of their resources in order to make an example and to make potential adversaries quiver in their presence by their legal might. Even if they would lose and even if they know they are wrong. [1] And even if it costs them money to do so. It scares lesser adversaries and even greater adversaries are not going to advise clients "it's ok" because what do they stand to gain by doing so?
Your thoughts?
[1]Separately I remember as a kid seeing a sign at the horseback riding place that said "ride at our own risk". My dad said "oh they just do that to that you won't call a lawyer and start trouble I mean if they leave a trashcan in the way of the horse and you get hurt of course that means nothing....(was a long time ago but that was the gist). Seems similar to that in a much larger way.
I'm just talking about the general philosophical point of making it illegal to lie about peoples' legal rights (e.g. how it's illegal in many states to include unenforceable provisions in rental agreements). I don't think such a law would be an infringement on free speech.
The Leauge Office is; the teams aren't. The teams make all the money, so it doesn't matter too much.
But it still doesn't make much sense for even the League Office to be tax-exempt. It doesn't meet any of the general criteria of operation for the public good. It would be hard for the government to address, since that status has a lot of history and the league has a lot of money and goodwill behind it. And there's some complication with player pensions or something. The best scenario would be for the NFL to give it up voluntarily; it wouldn't be a high price to pay to remove a common criticism.
The "public good" criterion is for charitable organizations. The NFL League Office is a trade association that is tax exempt under a different set of criteria. (Of course you may disagree with trade association exemption criteria but they're pretty common--including within the software industry--as well as things like chambers of commerce. Or you may object to the specific exemption for sports leagues that's in the law.)
Update: Keep down-voting all you want. The Forbes article is weak in classifying all of the NFL as one entity. The below link gives a good overview of the structure of the NFL and it's tax exceptions. I'm glad I read it. That said the NFL still shouldn't be a non-profit organization.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/nfl-tax-exem...
The NFL is an industry association; it exists to further the health and welfare of its industry (American football). Furthermore, the NFL doesn't take in revenue at all; it runs at an operating loss. Instead, NFL Ventures (which is a for-profit corporation) collects all monies related to the league and passes that money along--less a (taxed) retained cushion--to the teams and the teams' ownership, which are likewise taxed as per normal for-profit entities.
So, yes, your claim is misleading and your defense of it worse.
Almost. They exist to promote their part of the industry. They don't exist to support football generally and take many steps to put down possibly competitive leagues, such as using tricks to forbid players from moving to other leagues, even after their NFL careers are over. (Most commonly via delayed salary benefits that end should the player start with a non-approved league or if they speak out against the NFL.)
