Topic: Revenue Sharing

Former NFL player Larry Johnson claims that professional football is a scripted form of entertainment managed through Masonic and Zionist numerology. Johnson points to the prevalence of the number 33 in game scores and the use of Gematria, such as the number 444, to signal occult rituals to those within the brotherhood. He argues that because the NFL is a revenue-sharing league, the outcome of games is controlled to maximize the "product" and fulfill specific narratives rather than being an authentic athletic competition.

The State of Michigan diverted approximately $5.5 billion in revenue sharing funds away from cities like Flint to pay state debts. This financial strain made it difficult for Flint to maintain a water system originally built for a much larger population and industrial base. Before the 2014 switch, Flint residents already faced excessively high water rates and frequent service shutoffs while purchasing water from Detroit.

The discussion explores the financial structure of the NFL, where approximately 70 to 80 percent of revenue is shared equally among all 32 teams. Brian Tuohy points out that rivalries are largely a fan fantasy, as owners of losing teams like the Detroit Lions still profit from the championship merchandise sales of winning teams like the New England Patriots.

The NFL argued before the Supreme Court that it is a single entity rather than 32 individual competing businesses. This structure is reinforced by a revenue-sharing model where approximately 80% of all income is distributed equally among all teams regardless of their win-loss record. This financial arrangement suggests that owners have a collective incentive to prioritize profitable storylines—such as the Saints winning after Hurricane Katrina—over pure athletic competition.

The transition from individual ownership to a communal resource-based economy is discussed as a response to the decline of labor-based jobs. Sable explains that by sharing high-cost items like cars, boats, and tools, a community can provide a higher standard of living with fewer resources. This model is presented as a bridge between current capitalistic debt and a future where money may no longer be necessary.