Jump to content

NFL eliminates cross-ownership policy


DigInBoys

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Wait...so then how did Benson buy the NO Pelicans when he ha already owned the NO Saints?

"in markets containing OTHER NFL teams" ie you couldn't own an NFL team in one city and another pro team(ie basketball, baseball) in another city which had a NFL team. To my knowledge.

This doesn't affect just the owners. There can be a lot of situations where teams come up for sale in pro sports and now you will have more NFL owners potentially in the mix. I don't think I need to explain how ownership can affect sports teams and fanbases in any number of ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DigInBoys said:

"in markets containing OTHER NFL teams" ie you couldn't own an NFL team in one city and another pro team(ie basketball, baseball) in another city which had a NFL team. To my knowledge.

This doesn't affect just the owners. There can be a lot of situations where teams come up for sale in pro sports and now you will have more NFL owners potentially in the mix. I don't think I need to explain how ownership can affect sports teams and fanbases in any number of ways.

So basically you couldn't own the Giants and the Knicks, or the Rams and the clippers, etc...

That's a pretty dumb rule to begin with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DigInBoys said:

"in markets containing OTHER NFL teams" ie you couldn't own an NFL team in one city and another pro team(ie basketball, baseball) in another city which had a NFL team. To my knowledge.

This doesn't affect just the owners. There can be a lot of situations where teams come up for sale in pro sports and now you will have more NFL owners potentially in the mix. I don't think I need to explain how ownership can affect sports teams and fanbases in any number of ways.

Okay, yeah, I was reading this all wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, rob_shadows said:

So basically you couldn't own the Giants and the Knicks, or the Rams and the clippers, etc...

That's a pretty dumb rule to begin with

No, quite the opposite. I believe it was more akin to "If I own an NFL team in one city, I cannot own a pro sports team in another city which also contains an NFL team".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mistakey said:

yeah the dude who owns all of the denver sports and arsenal had to own the rams instead of the broncos

Well, it was actually the opposite, he couldn't own all the other Denver teams if he wanted to buy the Rams, since that market already contained the Broncos.  He might have wanted to own the Broncos, but they weren't up for sale.  He wanted to get into NFL ownership and it just so happened that the Rams were up for sale.    

Either way, it was always a ridiculous rule, since the other sports aren't really in direct competition with the NFL (they are, but it's not really that significant of an impact).  But, like the blackout rule, I imagine it was created at a time when they were still in self-preservation mode.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...