An investor can own pieces of several rivals. Fans have one team—and a different definition of a successful season.
Your team misses the playoffs again, and ownership is asking for patience. As another offseason begins, you wonder how many more years you’ll hear that before the people running the franchise spend what it takes to get better.
Now imagine an investor who owns a piece of your team and pieces of several opponents. From that seat, the season can look quite different: even while you’re watching another playoff series without your team in it, revenue can grow, ownership stakes can appreciate, and other clubs in the portfolio can have a good year.
That is the question at the center of private equity in sports: what happens to competition when an investor can succeed financially even while your team keeps losing?
Private equity pools investors’ money to buy ownership interests in businesses, with a fund manager responsible for producing returns. In sports, those returns can come from commercial growth, gains across several clubs, and eventually selling stakes at a profit. A championship would certainly give fans and investors something to celebrate together, but the investor has other ways to come out ahead.
You can already see this approach in Blue Owl’s HomeCourt fund, which has invested in NBA franchises including the Cavaliers, Hornets, and Kings. Its July 2026 Cavaliers announcement describes special preapproval to buy stakes across all 30 NBA teams—a much wider field of possible investments than the handful of clubs it actually owns pieces of.
That is why I’m skeptical, even though some teams can put this money to good use. Leagues are inviting investors to spread their financial interests across rivals while fans stay attached to one club. Before we call that good for sports, we ought to be able to explain what those supporters get out of the deal.
Why owners welcome the money
For an owner whose wealth is tied up in a franchise, selling a minority stake can turn some of those billions into cash while retaining control of the team. It can help work through a departing partner’s stake or an inheritance, while an investment can also help finance a major construction project.
As franchise prices climb, finding someone who can write the check gets harder, especially when the buyer has to accept limited authority. Funds offer a way to make those deals happen. Arctos Partners, an investment firm that buys minority stakes in sports franchises, is one of those buyers. It advertises owner liquidity, growth financing, and commercial support, describing its approach as long-term and noncontrolling—a pitch that lets owners raise money while keeping their place at the head of the table.
For a fan reading the announcement, though, there is another question: how much of the money does the team actually get? If a fund buys newly issued shares, the cash goes into the business. If it buys an existing owner’s shares, the seller gets paid. A deal can do both, which is why a headline about hundreds of millions flowing into sports may tell you very little about the next season’s budget.
Take Inter Miami. In September 2021, Ares announced a $150 million preferred-equity investment in the club through its Credit Group, linking the financing to the Mas brothers and David Beckham buying out two existing owners. The announcement did not spell out the full allocation of the proceeds, so we cannot treat that entire $150 million as new money for players or facilities.
That preferred-equity structure can put an investor ahead of other shareholders when payments are made. For anyone trying to understand the deal, following the money means looking at both where it goes today and who gets paid first later.
Helping an owner sell can preserve stability or solve a succession problem. I can see why a league would welcome that, but when someone says sports needs private equity, I want to know which problem they mean. A smooth ownership transition may help the club, but fans would still need to see how that helps the team they follow.
What the leagues allow
Buying a stake in a team usually does not mean taking over the franchise. Most major U.S. leagues allow institutional funds to buy minority interests while a separate controlling owner remains in charge. NWSL also offers a route to control a single club, so the same label—private equity—can describe investors with very different authority.
Fund can control the club under the one-club route
Simplified reported frameworks from Clifford Chance’s January 2026 comparison, with selected disclosed transactions. Limits are not the percentages held in the examples. Approvals and exceptions apply; MLS uses a single-entity league structure.
That is why I would be careful with the phrase “PE owns the team.” A passive stake in a club, an investment in its parent company, and outright control do not put the investor in the same position to make decisions. Even the buyer’s day job can confuse the picture: a private equity executive buying personally is not the same as a fund investing on behalf of its clients.
How much is another chance to win worth?
An investor reading this could reasonably push back: why wouldn’t we want to win? Winning can attract audiences, sponsors, and customers, giving the investor and the fan plenty of common ground—until they disagree about how much another chance at winning is worth.
Consider a hypothetical choice between expanding player development and building premium hospitality space. Development spending could improve the team, with no promise of how much better it gets or what that improvement earns. Ownership might have an easier time estimating what new suites and premium seating will earn than what another investment in player development will produce. If you’ve spent years waiting for a contender, you may want the development investment even when the hospitality project looks better financially. An investor could reasonably argue that the new hospitality revenue will help pay for development later, or that its capital could fund both. The disagreement comes when ownership has to choose what gets funded first and how long fans should wait for the promised reinvestment.
Owners were making those choices long before private equity arrived. An individual owner can underinvest, take distributions, or tolerate losing, and some already answer to partners. Our earlier coverage of Mark Cuban’s warning about NBA private equity raised a similar concern about the focus on valuations. A fund adds an explicit investment mandate and, potentially, stakes in several rivals to that existing pursuit of revenue.
Holding stakes in several clubs also gives the fund manager a different way to assess those decisions. The fund can want each team to win and provide capital to help, while judging the investment by returns across all its holdings. A fan waiting on one club’s development plan has no such consolation.
There is also the question of how independent these clubs remain when they share an investor. Teams already benefit from a healthy league, but a common fund creates another connection between rivals. I would want to know what financial information it receives from each club, who can see that information, and which decisions its representatives can influence. A percentage on an ownership chart does not answer those questions.
A minority stake alone does not establish influence over a roster or budget, and the controlling owner remains responsible for those decisions. The deals described here also do not establish collusion or a general decline in competition caused by PE. Leagues should still explain how they will protect clubs’ independence as more investors buy into several rivals.
A league could point to close games and a different champion each year as signs that competition is healthy. But that would not tell us whether individual owners were doing everything they could to improve their teams. Payroll limits and spending requirements constrain some choices, while ownership still makes decisions about coaching, scouting, facilities, and development. As a fan, I want to know that ownership will keep looking for an edge, even when the financial payoff is hard to predict.
Some of the money builds the sport
Bay FC makes it harder to argue that private equity is simply bad for sports. Sixth Street was the majority investor behind the new NWSL club, alongside founding partners Brandi Chastain, Leslie Osborne, Danielle Slaton, and Aly Wagner. Here, the money helped get a team off the ground, with the 2023 announcement committing to training and operating infrastructure as well.
The spending extended to the roster. When Bay FC signed Racheal Kundananji in February 2024, its scouting director credited ownership support for making the acquisition possible. For a supporter trying to judge what an investor brings to the club, backing a player signing is a lot easier to appreciate than a rising franchise valuation.
There is a longer project underway, too: a privately funded performance center on Treasure Island, scheduled to open before the 2027 season. It is still under construction, so the club has work left to deliver on that promise. But spending on a place for players to train gives the investment a purpose fans can understand and follow over time.
This is the part of the case for private equity that deserves a fair hearing. A new club needs money well before it has dependable revenue, and investors willing to stay through those early years can help create jobs, improve working conditions, and give supporters a team to follow. Investment horizons vary; assuming every sports fund is looking for a quick sale would miss that possibility.
Bay FC will still have to answer for its decisions on pricing and competitive spending as it grows. For now, though, its example gives us a reason to ask where the money is going before deciding what to think of the investor. Helping build a club offers a benefit that simply paying a departing owner does not.
PE’s potential benefits and risks
What it can add:
Owner liquidity: A departing partner can sell without requiring the entire franchise to change hands.
Money for the team: New equity can fund facilities, player development, and competitive investment.
Commercial expertise: Better sponsorship and venue operations can generate revenue the team can reinvest.
What fans should watch:
Affordability: Revenue growth can come from charging existing supporters more.
Spending priorities: Ownership may favor projects with predictable income over uncertain sporting gains.
Independence: Shared investors raise questions about information access and influence across rival clubs.
A deal can deliver some of these benefits while also creating risks for fans.
Fans cannot diversify their loyalty
An investor can spread money across teams, sell a stake, or move into another industry. If your children wear the same colors you grew up wearing, those options offer very little comfort. A better-performing team elsewhere in the portfolio does nothing for the season you just sat through.
That loyalty sustains the business through bad years, but it can also give ownership room to charge more without improving much. Revenue could rise while supporters struggle to afford a seat or follow every game. Individual owners can make those choices just as funds can. Inviting more investors in should come with a conversation about how much more leagues expect fans to pay.
And even a winning team may not settle the argument. In an April 2025 interview with Strasbourg publication Pokaa, Maxime, a spokesman for the Ultra Boys 90 supporters’ group, said they wanted decisions made locally rather than at Chelsea. The group opposed BlueCo’s ownership even as results improved, while other supporters objected to the protest. This was a controlling, multi-club structure, different from passive U.S. stakes, but the disagreement is worth sitting with: fans can enjoy better football and still question what is happening to their club.
That is where I would start asking more of leagues and owners. Explain the limits on a shared investor’s access to information and influence. When a deal is announced, tell us how much money goes into the team and how much pays selling owners. If the announcement promises sporting investment, come back later and show what was built, hired, or improved. Fans should be able to follow more than the rising sale price.
Bay FC gives leagues something concrete to point to when they make the case for outside investment. I want to see that same willingness to explain the benefits when the announcement is about an established franchise. If the promise is a stronger club, supporters should be able to see progress beyond the next ownership transaction.
Private equity can finish a losing season with a good return while supporters head into another offseason being asked for patience. Leagues should explain how these deals will strengthen the commitment to compete—and give fans a way to judge whether they did.
Frequently asked questions
Does a private equity investment give the fund control of a team?
Usually not under the major U.S. leagues’ institutional-investor rules. Funds generally buy minority interests, with control staying elsewhere. NWSL has a separate route allowing a fund to control one club. A stake in a parent company can also provide exposure to several teams without being a direct investment in each one.
Does the money go toward players and facilities?
Not automatically. Newly issued equity puts cash into the business. A purchase of an existing owner’s shares pays the seller. A transaction can do both, and the headline investment amount may not reveal the split.
Does private equity make a team less interested in winning?
The deals described here do not establish that. Winning can increase revenue, and outside capital can support competitive spending. The concern is that financial success and sporting success can diverge, especially for investors holding stakes in several teams.
Stay updated: Get more SportsEpreneur coverage of ownership, money, and the business behind the games. Sign up for updates.
League rules and ownership information reviewed September 23, 2026. Company and club announcements establish disclosed transactions and plans; they do not independently prove benefits for fans or competition.
Eric Kasimov is the founder of SportsEpreneur, part of the KazSource media network. Since launching the platform in 2015, he has hosted over 500 podcast episodes, written and published more than 1,500 articles, and advised business leaders, founders, and creators on building authority through media strategy.
Through his brands — KazSource, KazCM, SportsEpreneur, and QuietLoud Studios — Eric leads teams that produce podcasts, develop brand platforms, and help companies grow through modern content ecosystems. He also scaled KazSource Insurance into a seven-figure boutique agency, providing the foundation for the broader media network he operates today.
His work has been featured in Forbes, Axios, and Front Office Sports, and his podcasts have included conversations with top founders, investors, and athletes turned entrepreneurs.
Private Equity Can Win Even When Your Team Loses
An investor can own pieces of several rivals. Fans have one team—and a different definition of a successful season.
Your team misses the playoffs again, and ownership is asking for patience. As another offseason begins, you wonder how many more years you’ll hear that before the people running the franchise spend what it takes to get better.
Now imagine an investor who owns a piece of your team and pieces of several opponents. From that seat, the season can look quite different: even while you’re watching another playoff series without your team in it, revenue can grow, ownership stakes can appreciate, and other clubs in the portfolio can have a good year.
That is the question at the center of private equity in sports: what happens to competition when an investor can succeed financially even while your team keeps losing?
Private equity pools investors’ money to buy ownership interests in businesses, with a fund manager responsible for producing returns. In sports, those returns can come from commercial growth, gains across several clubs, and eventually selling stakes at a profit. A championship would certainly give fans and investors something to celebrate together, but the investor has other ways to come out ahead.
You can already see this approach in Blue Owl’s HomeCourt fund, which has invested in NBA franchises including the Cavaliers, Hornets, and Kings. Its July 2026 Cavaliers announcement describes special preapproval to buy stakes across all 30 NBA teams—a much wider field of possible investments than the handful of clubs it actually owns pieces of.
That is why I’m skeptical, even though some teams can put this money to good use. Leagues are inviting investors to spread their financial interests across rivals while fans stay attached to one club. Before we call that good for sports, we ought to be able to explain what those supporters get out of the deal.
Why owners welcome the money
For an owner whose wealth is tied up in a franchise, selling a minority stake can turn some of those billions into cash while retaining control of the team. It can help work through a departing partner’s stake or an inheritance, while an investment can also help finance a major construction project.
As franchise prices climb, finding someone who can write the check gets harder, especially when the buyer has to accept limited authority. Funds offer a way to make those deals happen. Arctos Partners, an investment firm that buys minority stakes in sports franchises, is one of those buyers. It advertises owner liquidity, growth financing, and commercial support, describing its approach as long-term and noncontrolling—a pitch that lets owners raise money while keeping their place at the head of the table.
For a fan reading the announcement, though, there is another question: how much of the money does the team actually get? If a fund buys newly issued shares, the cash goes into the business. If it buys an existing owner’s shares, the seller gets paid. A deal can do both, which is why a headline about hundreds of millions flowing into sports may tell you very little about the next season’s budget.
Take Inter Miami. In September 2021, Ares announced a $150 million preferred-equity investment in the club through its Credit Group, linking the financing to the Mas brothers and David Beckham buying out two existing owners. The announcement did not spell out the full allocation of the proceeds, so we cannot treat that entire $150 million as new money for players or facilities.
That preferred-equity structure can put an investor ahead of other shareholders when payments are made. For anyone trying to understand the deal, following the money means looking at both where it goes today and who gets paid first later.
Helping an owner sell can preserve stability or solve a succession problem. I can see why a league would welcome that, but when someone says sports needs private equity, I want to know which problem they mean. A smooth ownership transition may help the club, but fans would still need to see how that helps the team they follow.
What the leagues allow
Buying a stake in a team usually does not mean taking over the franchise. Most major U.S. leagues allow institutional funds to buy minority interests while a separate controlling owner remains in charge. NWSL also offers a route to control a single club, so the same label—private equity—can describe investors with very different authority.
Simplified reported frameworks from Clifford Chance’s January 2026 comparison, with selected disclosed transactions. Limits are not the percentages held in the examples. Approvals and exceptions apply; MLS uses a single-entity league structure.
That is why I would be careful with the phrase “PE owns the team.” A passive stake in a club, an investment in its parent company, and outright control do not put the investor in the same position to make decisions. Even the buyer’s day job can confuse the picture: a private equity executive buying personally is not the same as a fund investing on behalf of its clients.
How much is another chance to win worth?
An investor reading this could reasonably push back: why wouldn’t we want to win? Winning can attract audiences, sponsors, and customers, giving the investor and the fan plenty of common ground—until they disagree about how much another chance at winning is worth.
Consider a hypothetical choice between expanding player development and building premium hospitality space. Development spending could improve the team, with no promise of how much better it gets or what that improvement earns. Ownership might have an easier time estimating what new suites and premium seating will earn than what another investment in player development will produce. If you’ve spent years waiting for a contender, you may want the development investment even when the hospitality project looks better financially. An investor could reasonably argue that the new hospitality revenue will help pay for development later, or that its capital could fund both. The disagreement comes when ownership has to choose what gets funded first and how long fans should wait for the promised reinvestment.
Owners were making those choices long before private equity arrived. An individual owner can underinvest, take distributions, or tolerate losing, and some already answer to partners. Our earlier coverage of Mark Cuban’s warning about NBA private equity raised a similar concern about the focus on valuations. A fund adds an explicit investment mandate and, potentially, stakes in several rivals to that existing pursuit of revenue.
Holding stakes in several clubs also gives the fund manager a different way to assess those decisions. The fund can want each team to win and provide capital to help, while judging the investment by returns across all its holdings. A fan waiting on one club’s development plan has no such consolation.
There is also the question of how independent these clubs remain when they share an investor. Teams already benefit from a healthy league, but a common fund creates another connection between rivals. I would want to know what financial information it receives from each club, who can see that information, and which decisions its representatives can influence. A percentage on an ownership chart does not answer those questions.
A minority stake alone does not establish influence over a roster or budget, and the controlling owner remains responsible for those decisions. The deals described here also do not establish collusion or a general decline in competition caused by PE. Leagues should still explain how they will protect clubs’ independence as more investors buy into several rivals.
A league could point to close games and a different champion each year as signs that competition is healthy. But that would not tell us whether individual owners were doing everything they could to improve their teams. Payroll limits and spending requirements constrain some choices, while ownership still makes decisions about coaching, scouting, facilities, and development. As a fan, I want to know that ownership will keep looking for an edge, even when the financial payoff is hard to predict.
Some of the money builds the sport
Bay FC makes it harder to argue that private equity is simply bad for sports. Sixth Street was the majority investor behind the new NWSL club, alongside founding partners Brandi Chastain, Leslie Osborne, Danielle Slaton, and Aly Wagner. Here, the money helped get a team off the ground, with the 2023 announcement committing to training and operating infrastructure as well.
The spending extended to the roster. When Bay FC signed Racheal Kundananji in February 2024, its scouting director credited ownership support for making the acquisition possible. For a supporter trying to judge what an investor brings to the club, backing a player signing is a lot easier to appreciate than a rising franchise valuation.
There is a longer project underway, too: a privately funded performance center on Treasure Island, scheduled to open before the 2027 season. It is still under construction, so the club has work left to deliver on that promise. But spending on a place for players to train gives the investment a purpose fans can understand and follow over time.
This is the part of the case for private equity that deserves a fair hearing. A new club needs money well before it has dependable revenue, and investors willing to stay through those early years can help create jobs, improve working conditions, and give supporters a team to follow. Investment horizons vary; assuming every sports fund is looking for a quick sale would miss that possibility.
Bay FC will still have to answer for its decisions on pricing and competitive spending as it grows. For now, though, its example gives us a reason to ask where the money is going before deciding what to think of the investor. Helping build a club offers a benefit that simply paying a departing owner does not.
PE’s potential benefits and risks
What it can add:
What fans should watch:
A deal can deliver some of these benefits while also creating risks for fans.
Fans cannot diversify their loyalty
An investor can spread money across teams, sell a stake, or move into another industry. If your children wear the same colors you grew up wearing, those options offer very little comfort. A better-performing team elsewhere in the portfolio does nothing for the season you just sat through.
That loyalty sustains the business through bad years, but it can also give ownership room to charge more without improving much. Revenue could rise while supporters struggle to afford a seat or follow every game. Individual owners can make those choices just as funds can. Inviting more investors in should come with a conversation about how much more leagues expect fans to pay.
And even a winning team may not settle the argument. In an April 2025 interview with Strasbourg publication Pokaa, Maxime, a spokesman for the Ultra Boys 90 supporters’ group, said they wanted decisions made locally rather than at Chelsea. The group opposed BlueCo’s ownership even as results improved, while other supporters objected to the protest. This was a controlling, multi-club structure, different from passive U.S. stakes, but the disagreement is worth sitting with: fans can enjoy better football and still question what is happening to their club.
That is where I would start asking more of leagues and owners. Explain the limits on a shared investor’s access to information and influence. When a deal is announced, tell us how much money goes into the team and how much pays selling owners. If the announcement promises sporting investment, come back later and show what was built, hired, or improved. Fans should be able to follow more than the rising sale price.
Bay FC gives leagues something concrete to point to when they make the case for outside investment. I want to see that same willingness to explain the benefits when the announcement is about an established franchise. If the promise is a stronger club, supporters should be able to see progress beyond the next ownership transaction.
Private equity can finish a losing season with a good return while supporters head into another offseason being asked for patience. Leagues should explain how these deals will strengthen the commitment to compete—and give fans a way to judge whether they did.
Frequently asked questions
Does a private equity investment give the fund control of a team?
Usually not under the major U.S. leagues’ institutional-investor rules. Funds generally buy minority interests, with control staying elsewhere. NWSL has a separate route allowing a fund to control one club. A stake in a parent company can also provide exposure to several teams without being a direct investment in each one.
Does the money go toward players and facilities?
Not automatically. Newly issued equity puts cash into the business. A purchase of an existing owner’s shares pays the seller. A transaction can do both, and the headline investment amount may not reveal the split.
Does private equity make a team less interested in winning?
The deals described here do not establish that. Winning can increase revenue, and outside capital can support competitive spending. The concern is that financial success and sporting success can diverge, especially for investors holding stakes in several teams.
Stay updated: Get more SportsEpreneur coverage of ownership, money, and the business behind the games. Sign up for updates.
Related SportsEpreneur coverage
Further listening
The Daily: “When Private Equity Comes for Your Favorite Team,” featuring Pablo Torre (August 21, 2026).
Sources
League rules and ownership information reviewed September 23, 2026. Company and club announcements establish disclosed transactions and plans; they do not independently prove benefits for fans or competition.
Eric Kasimov is the founder of SportsEpreneur, part of the KazSource media network. Since launching the platform in 2015, he has hosted over 500 podcast episodes, written and published more than 1,500 articles, and advised business leaders, founders, and creators on building authority through media strategy.
Through his brands — KazSource, KazCM, SportsEpreneur, and QuietLoud Studios — Eric leads teams that produce podcasts, develop brand platforms, and help companies grow through modern content ecosystems. He also scaled KazSource Insurance into a seven-figure boutique agency, providing the foundation for the broader media network he operates today.
His work has been featured in Forbes, Axios, and Front Office Sports, and his podcasts have included conversations with top founders, investors, and athletes turned entrepreneurs.