I think the big word that bothers some, is the Non-proft term used in the nfl's case despite there tremendous profits. However, look at the American Cancer Society and the partnership with NFL. The ACS also scored two out of four stars according to Charity Navigator, with 37.26 rating out of 70 for financial outcomes, lower than average for nonprofit organizations. The American Cancer Society has also partnered with the National football league to raise awareness for breast cancer by allowing the NFL to sell pink colored merchandise to fans. According to Moran, (2012). only 70.8% of money the ACS receives goes towards research and cancer programs, meaning for every $100 in sales of pink gear, only $3.54 is going towards research while the NFL is keeping approximately $45 (based on 100% mark-up). It is not ethical for the ACS to continue working with a organization which is capitalizing on a disease affecting millions throughout the world to target the female demographic and gain more profit for their organization where they were lacking in the past. Nonprofits pursue profit no less than for-profits; they just refer to it as "increase in fund balances." Nonprofits differ from for-profit organizations in at least two significant dimensions: They do not pay tax and they do not have principal (i.e. owner-stockholders) in the agency theory framework, typical of a for-profit business. Because of these differences, nonprofits are relatively less effective, less efficient and less ethical in fulfilling their goals and mission. This higher propensity of unethical behavior by nonprofits can be attributed to the "agent without principal" paradigm. Other factors are typically passive board of trustees, indifferent benefactors and reluctant beneficiaries. Furthermore, humanistic image and a weak regulatory environment spare them from thorough scrutiny. This paper cites examples of questionable, illegal and unethical practices by nonprofits. Remedial measures have been suggested to monitor and to mitigate such practices.

unethical and illegal activities among nonprofits are virtually immune from publicity and disclosure by stakeholders, media and regulatory agencies. The humanistic or altruistic image shields them from criticism. This is partly because of the following reasons. 1) Most of nonprofits are small both in size and operation 2) their stakeholders are limited in number; 3) regulatory agencies are understaffed. 4) The humanistic image and community service mission of most of the nonprofits. Finally 5) neither the supplier of funds (donors and taxpayers) nor the customers (recipients of services) have power, authority and control on operations of the nonprofits. "The United States seems suddenly to be burgeoning with efforts to develop businessoriented managers for the not-for-profit human service sector. Social workers and psychologists hurry back to school to get M.B.A. ...As this happens; the lines between profit and not-for-profit get more and more blurred. Not-for-profits are developing profit making subsidiaries and multicorporate structure to play the competition game... "...there is no such thing as a non-profit...(agency)....All...(agencies)...must turn a profit, in the sense that each must complete the financial reporting period with an excess of revenue over expenditures...No organization can endure with deficit. All... (agencies)...without exception, must complete their financial performance over time with a surplus - or go down the drain." This surplus or increase in fund balance is no guarantee that the nonprofit is operating effectively, efficiently or ethically. As will be discussed later, nonprofits are able to avoid scrutiny of their operations due to the, absence of the manager-stockholder or agent-principal paradigm, typical of for-profit businesses and due to their humanistic image. Incidentally, most nonprofits therefore under perform on all three accounts. Specific areas of law under which the non-profits are analyzed include taxation and non-profit law including: dealing with general operations of a nonprofit organization, boards of directors, conflicts, and liabilities, expenditure of funds, acquiring tax-exempt status, fundraising, charitable fraud prevention, audits, and annual returns (Hopkins, 2005). In attempting to improve ethical decision-making in business organizations, researchers have developed models of the ethical decision-making processes; however, these models do not include a role for law in ethical decision-making, or if law is mentioned, it is set as a boundary constraint, exogenous to the decision process . The criminal law of fraud can be applied as in the case with William Aramony, the former president of United Way of America who was convicted of 25 counts of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering, stealing nearly $600,000 from the nation's biggest charity.

Corporate legal scholarship has failed in fundamental ways to grasp the ethical significance of corporate law and policy. While the broader economic and social consequences of particular legal developments are debated routinely, too little reflection is given to how such developments influence the moral quality of individual lives within the corporate hierarchy. A framework is suggested for illuminating the interaction between developments in corporate legal doctrine and the ethical choices of corporate managers. The ethical significance of corporate law derives from 2 key factors: 1. The corporation as an organization mediates between individuals in the corporate hierarchy and their ethical responsibilities. 2. The organizational choices and decision-making structure of the corporation are to a significant degree the product of corporate law. Because corporate law impacts both directly and indirectly upon the development of corporate choices and the nature of underlying decision-making structures, its doctrines and principles play an integral part in the formation of the ethical choices faced by corporate managers and by recognizing and exploring this connection, can enrich significantly corporate legal scholarship. Having reviewed the major recent models of ethical decision-making from their various theoretical perspectives, the conclusion can be drawn that there is indeed room for a more explicit role for law in ethical decision-making.