The Hidden Game: Why Most Sports Teams Stay Private
April 6, 2025, 4:40 pm
In the world of sports, teams are more than just collections of players. They are empires, cultural icons, and symbols of pride. As valuations soar, the question arises: why do most sports teams remain privately owned? The answer is a complex interplay of tradition, control, and the evolving landscape of finance.
Over the past two decades, the value of North American sports franchises has skyrocketed. The NFL, NBA, and MLB have seen valuations climb nearly 1,000%. The Baltimore Ravens, for instance, were bought for $600 million in 2004. Today, they are worth over $6 billion. This meteoric rise is a siren song for many owners. Yet, despite the allure of public ownership, most teams choose to stay private.
For many owners, these franchises are not just businesses. They are family legacies, cultural assets, and status symbols. The idea of going public can feel like selling a piece of their identity. It’s akin to letting a stranger into your home. You might gain liquidity and access to new capital, but at what cost?
Public companies face a gauntlet of regulations. They must navigate shareholder pressures and financial transparency. The stakes are high. Owners risk losing control over their teams. Selling shares means relinquishing decision-making power. It’s a delicate balance between appeasing shareholders and keeping fans happy.
Take the Green Bay Packers, for example. They are a unique case in the sports world. As a publicly owned non-profit team, their shares are more about fan memorabilia than financial gain. Most franchises, however, follow a corporate ownership model. The New York Knicks, owned by MSG Sports, and the Toronto Blue Jays, under Rogers Communications, exemplify this trend.
In 2023, the Atlanta Braves made headlines by becoming a publicly traded team after splitting from Liberty Media. This move raised eyebrows. It was a bold step into the unknown. Yet, it remains an exception rather than the rule.
Instead of going public, many teams are turning to private equity. This financing strategy allows firms to acquire minority stakes, typically between 10% and 30%. Kansas City Chiefs owner Clark Hunt has hailed this as a “great new source of capital.” It’s a way to inject funds without losing control.
Some owners prefer to work with sports investment bankers. These professionals connect them with wealthy individuals or limited partners willing to pay a premium for exclusivity. It’s a dance of dollars, where control remains firmly in the hands of the owners.
However, private equity firms often expect an exit strategy. This could mean a sale or an eventual IPO. The pressure to go public may grow over time. Yet, for now, leagues remain cautious. They worry about the disruptions that public ownership could bring. Sensitive financial disclosures and tougher labor negotiations are just the tip of the iceberg.
The landscape of sports ownership is shifting. As valuations continue to rise, the allure of public ownership may become harder to resist. But for now, the majority of teams cling to their private status. They value control over capital. They cherish tradition over transparency.
In a world where the stakes are high, the choice to remain private is a calculated risk. It’s a game of strategy, where the players are not just on the field but in the boardroom. The future of sports ownership remains uncertain. Will more teams choose to go public? Or will they continue to guard their legacies fiercely?
As the sports world evolves, so too will the strategies of ownership. The balance between tradition and modernity will be tested. The game is far from over.
In conclusion, the reasons behind the reluctance to go public are as layered as a championship playbook. Control, tradition, and the fear of losing identity weigh heavily on the minds of owners. While the financial landscape shifts, the heart of sports ownership remains steadfast. For now, the private realm is where most teams feel at home. But as valuations soar, the call of the public market may grow louder. The future will reveal whether teams will answer that call or continue to play it safe in the shadows.
Over the past two decades, the value of North American sports franchises has skyrocketed. The NFL, NBA, and MLB have seen valuations climb nearly 1,000%. The Baltimore Ravens, for instance, were bought for $600 million in 2004. Today, they are worth over $6 billion. This meteoric rise is a siren song for many owners. Yet, despite the allure of public ownership, most teams choose to stay private.
For many owners, these franchises are not just businesses. They are family legacies, cultural assets, and status symbols. The idea of going public can feel like selling a piece of their identity. It’s akin to letting a stranger into your home. You might gain liquidity and access to new capital, but at what cost?
Public companies face a gauntlet of regulations. They must navigate shareholder pressures and financial transparency. The stakes are high. Owners risk losing control over their teams. Selling shares means relinquishing decision-making power. It’s a delicate balance between appeasing shareholders and keeping fans happy.
Take the Green Bay Packers, for example. They are a unique case in the sports world. As a publicly owned non-profit team, their shares are more about fan memorabilia than financial gain. Most franchises, however, follow a corporate ownership model. The New York Knicks, owned by MSG Sports, and the Toronto Blue Jays, under Rogers Communications, exemplify this trend.
In 2023, the Atlanta Braves made headlines by becoming a publicly traded team after splitting from Liberty Media. This move raised eyebrows. It was a bold step into the unknown. Yet, it remains an exception rather than the rule.
Instead of going public, many teams are turning to private equity. This financing strategy allows firms to acquire minority stakes, typically between 10% and 30%. Kansas City Chiefs owner Clark Hunt has hailed this as a “great new source of capital.” It’s a way to inject funds without losing control.
Some owners prefer to work with sports investment bankers. These professionals connect them with wealthy individuals or limited partners willing to pay a premium for exclusivity. It’s a dance of dollars, where control remains firmly in the hands of the owners.
However, private equity firms often expect an exit strategy. This could mean a sale or an eventual IPO. The pressure to go public may grow over time. Yet, for now, leagues remain cautious. They worry about the disruptions that public ownership could bring. Sensitive financial disclosures and tougher labor negotiations are just the tip of the iceberg.
The landscape of sports ownership is shifting. As valuations continue to rise, the allure of public ownership may become harder to resist. But for now, the majority of teams cling to their private status. They value control over capital. They cherish tradition over transparency.
In a world where the stakes are high, the choice to remain private is a calculated risk. It’s a game of strategy, where the players are not just on the field but in the boardroom. The future of sports ownership remains uncertain. Will more teams choose to go public? Or will they continue to guard their legacies fiercely?
As the sports world evolves, so too will the strategies of ownership. The balance between tradition and modernity will be tested. The game is far from over.
In conclusion, the reasons behind the reluctance to go public are as layered as a championship playbook. Control, tradition, and the fear of losing identity weigh heavily on the minds of owners. While the financial landscape shifts, the heart of sports ownership remains steadfast. For now, the private realm is where most teams feel at home. But as valuations soar, the call of the public market may grow louder. The future will reveal whether teams will answer that call or continue to play it safe in the shadows.