The Tennessee Titans have their 53-man roster solidified for now, but in the NFL, things change on a dime.

The Titans have some unique factors in regards to their 53-man roster. Here’s a look at three observations:

Most NFL teams usually carry three tight ends on their roster at any given time. Some teams will bring four on the roster, in case they like an extra blocker, but very rarely do teams carry five … unless you’re the Titans.

The Titans have Chig Okonkwo, Josh Whyle, Nick Vannett, Thomas Odukoya and David Martin-Robinson all on the initial 53-man roster.

With Whyle injured for most of training camp, Martin-Robinson and Odukoya saw more reps than usual, and they impressed the Titans enough to warrant a roster spot.

It’s unlikely all five will dress on game day, but they should all have some impact this season.

The Titans have been decimated at the defensive line spot, with Marlon Davidson and TK McLendon Jr. both hitting injured reserve.

That leaves Jeffery Simmons, T’Vondre Sweat, Keondre Coburn and Sebastian Joseph-Day as the only defensive linemen on the roster.

It’s likely that the team won’t be satisfied with just those four, and perhaps a waiver claim or two is coming.

The Titans have also been stung by the injury bug in the linebacker room, with Chance Campbell, JoJo Domann and Garret Wallow all out for the year with injuries.

Trading for Los Angeles Rams linebacker Ernest Jones will help tremendously and gives the Titans another linebacker to work with.

Jones will eat up a lot of snaps alongside Kenneth Murray Jr. and Jack Gibbens leading Dennard Wilson’s defense.

The Titans’ 53-man roster is preparing for their Week 1 matchup against the Chicago Bears on Sunday, Sept. 8.

Make sure you bookmark Tennessee Titans on SI for the latest news, exclusive interviews, film breakdowns and so much more!

Sales tax revenue, often a significant source of funding for local governments, may be perceived as securely allocated to the municipality where it is generated—but this assumption overlooks the reality that state governments often retain considerable control.

In many states, the allocation of sales tax revenue to municipalities is not guaranteed, and may be contingent on compliance with state policies. This can be a powerful tool for reinforcing state priorities over local autonomy.

Memphis Gun Reform

A recent example in Tennessee illustrates the dynamic between states and municipalities. Memphis city leaders had approved a plan to place a gun control referendum on the November ballot, much to the chagrin of Tennessee state Republican leaders.

The referendum would address critical issues such as requiring permits for guns and banning assault rifles outright—but its placement on the ballot is an open question.

Tennessee Republican leaders threatened to withhold Memphis’ share of sales tax revenue, arguing the referendum would be tantamount to a circumvention of state law. The threat underscored the vulnerability of municipal budgets to state-level political decisions—because it worked. Election officials agreed to leave the gun control questions off the ballot.

The distribution of state sales tax revenue is often not a matter of simple allocation to where the revenue was generated, but implicates a complex interplay of power and politics.

Broader Implications

The outcome in Tennessee is a clear illustration that sales tax revenue, crucial for funding local services, can be wielded as a tool of political influence.

The ability of states to control the flow of sales tax revenue raises questions about municipalities’ ability to legislate—doubly so in states where there are significant political differences between cities and state government.

This pressure can stifle innovation in governance and prevent municipalities from addressing the needs and desires of their residents, where local conditions and priorities may differ significantly from those of the state. It also emphasizes the importance of the state government in any policy reform.

Policy Reforms

Moving forward, state initiatives could be encouraged to draft legislation that protects municipalities from financial retaliation in much the same way many state constitutions prohibit state legislatures from cutting funding from the judiciary.

Such legislation could include revenue allocation safeguards, wherein states guarantee municipalities will receive their share of sales tax revenue based on where it is generated, regardless of any local policy decisions.

Further, non-retaliation clauses could be encouraged, which would explicitly prohibit the withholding of funds as a punitive measure for policy differences. Such policies would, at least, require state governments like that in Tennessee to make their reallocations less explicitly retaliatory.

Ultimately, there would need to be judicial oversight, giving municipalities the right to challenge withholding of revenue in state court, with clear standards as to when it is and is not appropriate.

Conclusion

The ability of states to wield sales tax revenue as a cudgel presents challenges to local governance. To protect municipalities and ensure they can address their unique needs without fear of state financial retaliation, it is crucial for states to enact legislation guaranteeing fair and consistent allocation of sales tax revenue.

By implementing safeguards, non-retaliation standards, and judicial oversight, a balance can be struck that upholds both local autonomy and state interests.