The NFL restricts ownership of franchises to 24 or fewer individuals. Furthermore another restriction forbids corporate owners. The Green Bay Packers, a community "publicly" owned nonprofit NFL franchise, was grandfathered in prior to the new restrictions. Future teams must meet the ownership restriction mandate.
How does libertarian theory approach restrictions on ownership? If one owns something, does not one get to do with it as they please (granted they are not acting coersively against another individual?) Can the NFL place such restrictions on ownership?
By the same token, franchises associate with the NFL voluntarily, so there seems to be no problem.
Assuming the NFL is a private organization, the NFL can restrict membership within its league. If a franchise does not mean the ownership requirements laid out by the league, the franchise can be denied membership within the NFL.
If the owners of the NFL want to limit membership to only those franchises that are owned by 24 or fewer individuals, that's up to them. However, nothing prevents a football team from being owned by more than 24 individuals -- they (presumably) just wouldn't be allowed membership in the NFL.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Thanks Jonathan and Autolykos. I tend to concur.
The only area where I disagree with the NFL is in its use of public funds to build facilities and the like. Of course the governments that do this could tell the NFL to take a hike but it isn't their money so they always buy the facility so the NFL can use it at a tremendous economic loss.