Should the Dallas Cowboys Go Socialist?

Categories: Sports

Thumbnail image for jerryJonesdancing.JPG
Unfortunately, Jerry is going nowhere.
Cowboys fans no doubt had high hopes that something would come of that White House petition to remove Jerry Jones as owner of the Cowboys. Alas, the White House removed the petition from its web site, claiming it was because it had nothing to do with the operation of the federal government but really trying to help assure a victory by the Redskins on Thanksgiving by keeping Jerry in charge.

Over at the Texas Monthly today, Joe Nick Patoski, who literally wrote the book on the Cowboys, offers a backup plan: "[G[o socialist, Jerry!"

What Patoski means is that Jones should take a lesson from the Green Bay Packers, which is the only community-owned team in the NFL, with some 300,000 shareholders.

Why would the NFL's most ruthless capitalist embrace that model? Because then Jerry Jones could finally get what he really wants most--another Super Bowl win.

Think of it: 300,000 Cowboys fans, in Texas and around the world, willing to pony up $10,000 apiece (a pittance compared to the personal seat licenses fans pay to dib a prime viewing seat at Cowboys Stadium, much less a luxury box) to call themselves part-owners. That's $3 billion more for Jerry. He also gets to keep the stadium receipts (like all that pizza money).

Patoski doesn't go into great detail about logistics, but in Green Bay, shareholders elect a 45-member board of directors, which then elects a seven-member executive committee that actually governs the team.

In the Cowboys' case, it's safe to say that any elected board would fire Jerry Jones as general manager, as Jones himself has said he deserves. That would be a wonderful thing for the Cowboys. It's also one of many, many reasons Jones would never consider selling the Cowboys to shareholders.

My Voice Nation Help
10 comments
MikeWestEast
MikeWestEast

How could you miss the real point of the exercise: Mr. Jones sell scads of piles of printed paper for big bucks that obese fans can hang on their man cave walls showing they are an "owner". The shares would be Class B having one millionth of the voting power of Mr. Jones' Class A shares. It is same strategy used by Ford and Facebook to retain control. It technically could pass the NFL rules since control remains in the hands of a small group with Mr. Jones holding > 33% (99.99%).

The Packers are not actually owned by the community. They are a private partnership, no different than the Cowboys, except no one shareholder has any control or undue influence. That is the rule that the Packers grandfathered for themselves in the NFL. Anytime you have thousands or hundreds of thousands of equal partners, you surrender control to management. None of the rules applicable to public companies apply. Yes the stockholders vote on a board for candidates selected by the board. Since none of the stockholders, board, or exec committee except its president get any money, no incentive exists beyond having a good team. The one thing the stockholders do get to vote independently on is ownership change. Since they would get no money, no reason exists to approve.

MattL11
MattL11

Problem with this: The NFL doesn't allow it anymore, I don't think. 

albert.finney000
albert.finney000

What makes you think that's not already the case? Animatronic asshole from Arkansas, has anyone seen him actually get wet?

albert.finney000
albert.finney000

Come to think of it though, Dez Bryant can't do any worse than Jerry Jones as GM

Sotiredofitall
Sotiredofitall topcommenter

Pointless speculation - after Jerry dies his borg cyberbrain (already waiting in a bunker under the star) will be activated to continue running the team

albert.finney000
albert.finney000

Socialist means the players would own the team, they're the workers

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

The Packers are community owned.  That hasn't hurt their success any.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@MattL11 I think you're right, but I don't think it's the league that prohibits it. It seems like I heard that during the last GB stock sale in 2011 that it's the owners association that actively discourages this type of ownership scheme.

I inherited several shares each from the 1950 and 1997 sales that my pop had purchased, and I know that my mom and other family members also have several shares from the 1997 and 2011 offerings.

The only dividend that they pay is the secure knowledge that there will never be a Jerry Jones calling the shots in GB. 

albert.finney000
albert.finney000

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz -Why should it, the community is just the venture capitalist group, a bunch of Romney's

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...