We posed the question to Jason Wied, the Packers’ vice president of administration/general counsel. He said that, although the team is community owned in the sense that it is owned by shareholders, the shareholders cannot benefit financially in any manner from the team.Political theorizing aside, today we note a Packer near win that might have identified some weaknesses in the defense (although it's the second blue-chip quarterback on the other side of the ball in as many weeks.)
"In some way, I suppose we are a blend of the best of the various economic systems/theories -- our structure and system results in a self-sufficient, community-focused enterprise that can’t be bought, sold, or otherwise leveraged for personal gain," Wied said in an email. "Instead, this is an organization whose only business is staying in business. Any profits are reinvested in the organization or given to charity."
So, Wied emphasized that while the Packers are community owned, Packers shareholders cannot benefit tangibly from the team.
That’s different from a socialist enterprise, in which owners or members would expect to receive a share of what that enterprise produces. Beyond the joy of Super Bowl victories and the agony ofnear-misses, Packers shareholders get little more than the opportunity to buy "exclusive shareholder merchandise" and tours of team facilities as part of the annual shareholder meeting.
GENERAL SECRETARY LAMBEAU AND COMRADES LOMBARDI AND MCCARTHY.
The Green Bay Packers, a socialist organization? No.