In a recent NFL owners meeting, the Cincinnati Bengals stood firm as the lone dissenting vote against new ownership rules, once again showing their inclination to go against the grain. The 31-1 final vote allowed private equity firms to buy passive minority stakes in franchises, a move supported by the majority of owners. However, Bengals' owner Mike Brown and the Brown family, who own the team, have frequently voted against NFL proposals, often to preserve the status quo or protect the interests of small market teams.

The Bengals' consistent opposition to league proposals is rooted in two key rationales: maintaining the status quo and addressing concerns about financial competitiveness with big-market teams. While the team did not respond to requests for comment on their latest dissenting vote, it is evident that they continue to prioritize their unique position as a small-market franchise.

The Brown family, synonymous with the Bengals and NFL royalty, has a deep-rooted history in football. Co-founder, coach, and namesake of the Cleveland Browns, Paul Brown went on to co-found the Bengals in 1968, with Mike Brown assuming control of the team after his father's passing in 1991. Representing the team at the recent owners meeting was Mike Brown's daughter, Katie Blackburn, a Bengals executive.

Critics of Mike Brown have accused him of not maximizing revenue for the Bengals. These criticisms range from employing a small sales staff to delaying the sale of stadium naming rights until 2022. The Bengals' valuation, at $4.71 billion, makes them the least valuable team in the NFL according to Sportico's team valuations published earlier this month. Their revenue of $554 million also ranks as the third lowest in the league.

The Bengals have a history of dissenting votes on critical issues. In 2006, they, along with the Buffalo Bills, were the only two teams to vote against the collective bargaining agreement between players and owners. The deal included a revenue-sharing system designed to support low-revenue teams, yet Brown and the Bills' former owner, Ralph Wilson, expressed concerns about the financial burden imposed by player costs.

Another area of contention for the Bengals has been video officiating review. In 1999, they were one of three teams to vote against its return after a six-year absence. Even in 2019, Mike Brown was the sole dissenter when the NFL expanded replay review. Brown has consistently emphasized voting with his conscience and respecting others' perspectives, regardless of whether they align with his own.

The Bengals' dissenting vote also extended to the suspension of the NFL's blackout policy in 2015. This policy prevented home games from being broadcast if the stadium was not sold out. Once again, Cincinnati found themselves on opposite ends, this time due to concerns about the revenue-sharing component that they believed disadvantaged low-revenue teams.

While Mike Brown denied voting against the Rams' move from St. Louis to Los Angeles in 2016, reports suggest that the Bengals may have been among the dissenters. Nonetheless, their consistent divergence from the majority serves as a testament to their commitment to protecting the interests of small-market teams.

Ironically, the Bengals could actually benefit from private equity investment. The Brown family's wealth is primarily tied to football, and bringing in a passive private equity investor could provide liquidity amidst potential estate issues. Over the years, the family's ownership stake in the Bengals increased to 97%, increasing the estate tax burden. Opening the doors to private equity could not only address financial challenges but potentially drive up the franchise's value in the long run.

As Mike Brown, now 89, remains committed to keeping the Bengals in the family, the ever-growing estate tax bill and the skyrocketing franchise values present ongoing challenges. The team's dissenting votes continue to highlight their unique position and willingness to stand their ground amidst an ever-changing NFL landscape.