The Home Team Act of 2026 makes three linked changes to how professional sports franchises move. First, it forbids leagues from barring government entities or members of the public from owning or acquiring franchises.
Second, it requires any franchise owner who wants to relocate across State lines or eliminate a team to give a prioritized, fair opportunity to purchase the franchise to local actors (local government, a home community cooperative, local nonprofits, or local private buyers). Third, it creates a Treasury appraisal team to set a fair purchase price and authorizes enforcement through daily fines by the Attorney General and civil suits by States or local governments.
This bill matters because it inserts federal rules into league and private franchise governance, changes the economics of relocation by deducting public stadium subsidies from an owner’s appraisal payout, and creates a statutory pathway for community ownership. Compliance officers, municipal finance officials, and franchise owners will need new procedures for notice, valuation, and transaction timing if the bill becomes law.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars leagues from prohibiting government or public ownership of franchises and forces owners to offer local entities a prioritized chance to purchase before relocating across State lines or eliminating a franchise. It requires Treasury-appointed appraisers to set a fair price and instructs that valuation exclude public subsidies for stadium construction.
Who It Affects
Major professional sports franchises and their owners, state and local governments that might seek to acquire teams, community cooperatives and nonprofits, and leagues that currently set ownership and relocation rules. Municipal finance and stadium counsel will be directly involved when a franchise considers a move.
Why It Matters
It shifts bargaining leverage toward home communities, reduces the leverage owners can use when seeking public stadium money, and codifies a federal remedy (civil fines and suits) for relocation disputes—altering the playbook for franchise sales, relocation negotiations, and stadium financing.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act has three operational pillars. First, it eliminates league-imposed bans that prevent public bodies or community-controlled entities from owning or acquiring a franchise.
That removes a contractual barrier many leagues currently enforce to shape who can be an owner or buyer. In practice this means a municipality, a democratically governed cooperative based in the franchise’s metropolitan area, or an organized nonprofit could become the buyer in a sale the owner initiates.
Second, the bill creates a statutory right of first offer for a descending priority list of local actors whenever an owner intends to relocate across State lines or eliminate a franchise. The owner must provide “proper notice” — which the bill defines as public notice at least one year before the season the move would take effect — and must offer the franchise for fair market value.
The priority order starts with local government entities or a home community cooperative, then nonprofits or public‑private partnerships, then private local buyers or consortia.Third, the bill sets a federally administered valuation and enforcement process. The Treasury must staff a team of professional appraisers to determine a “fair price,” and that appraisal must subtract any government payments, credits, or subsidies used to build the stadium where the team played most home games.
Enforcement is two‑pronged: the Attorney General can levy a civil penalty for days of noncompliance, and States or local governments can sue for injunctive relief and monetary damages. The Act also includes definitions (e.g., community = metropolitan statistical area) and a rule preserving existing collective‑bargaining rights and agreements.Taken together, these mechanisms create predictable administrative steps (notice, appraisal, offer, and purchase) before a franchise can leave, while explicitly limiting owners’ ability to rely on league rules to block community purchasers.
The operational reality will be transactional and legal: owners, leagues, and potential community buyers will need playbooks for notice timelines, appraisal disputes, funding acquisitions, and coordinating public approvals for acquisitions and facilities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
If an owner proposes relocation or elimination, the bill requires notice at least one year before the season when the franchise would play in the new location or be eliminated.
The Treasury must form a team of professional appraisers to set the fair purchase price, and the appraisal must subtract the total value of any government payments, credits, or subsidies for the franchise’s primary stadium.
Priority to buy runs in descending order: (1) local government or a home community cooperative, (2) a nonprofit or public‑private partnership with a local cooperative/nonprofit, then (3) local private persons, consortia, or companies.
The Attorney General may impose a civil fine of $30,000 per day for each day a franchise owner remains in violation of the Act.
States and units of local government receive an explicit private right of action to seek injunctive relief and monetary damages against franchise owners who violate the statute.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibition on league bans of public/community ownership
This subsection prevents leagues that operate in or affect interstate commerce from including rules or agreements that ban ownership of a franchise by a government entity or members of the general public, or that block transfers to such owners. Practically, leagues would no longer be able to enforce clauses that exclude public or cooperative ownership structures, forcing changes to league constitutions or bylaws that currently condition approval on private ownership profiles.
Mandatory offer and prioritized purchase opportunity
This provision requires franchise owners who plan to move across State lines or eliminate a franchise to offer the team for sale at fair market value and to give specified local actors priority. The statute lists the priority order, defines who qualifies (local government, home community cooperative, nonprofit, local private buyers), and sets the owner’s obligations to give ‘‘proper notice’’ of the proposed move. The mechanics convert a relocation decision into a sale process with a structured right of first offer for local purchasers.
Federal appraisal team and subsidy deduction
The Secretary of the Treasury must assemble professionally trained appraisers to evaluate a fair purchase price. Critically, the statute mandates that appraisals deduct the total amount of any government payment, credit, or subsidy used to build the stadium where the franchise played most home games. That deduction reduces the cash required for a local purchase or, conversely, reduces the seller’s recovery—altering investment returns tied to stadium subsidies.
Enforcement: AG fines and private suits by governments
Enforcement is dual: the Attorney General can assess a civil penalty of $30,000 per day against a noncompliant franchise owner, and a unit of local government or State may bring a civil action for injunctive and monetary relief. This creates both federal executive enforcement and a private enforcement lever for public actors, shifting relocation disputes from purely contract or league governance arenas into federal courts.
Labor carve‑outs and definitional framework
The Act expressly preserves employees’ rights to collectively bargain and protects existing collective‑bargaining agreements in force on enactment. The definitions subsection operationalizes key terms used throughout the Act—defining community as the metropolitan statistical area where the team plays most home games, describing home community cooperatives, listing covered leagues, and setting what constitutes ‘‘proper notice’’ and ‘‘social media platform’’ for public disclosure requirements.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Economy across all five countries.
Explore Economy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Local governments and taxpayers — gain a statutory opportunity to acquire a local franchise and to block an immediate owner relocation, potentially preserving local economic activity and giving municipalities negotiating leverage without granting additional public subsidies.
- Home community cooperatives and local nonprofits — receive explicit legal recognition and priority as buyers, enabling community‑based ownership models that many leagues have historically excluded.
- Local businesses and workers — stand to keep commerce and employment tied to home games if a community purchase succeeds, stabilizing revenues for hotels, restaurants, and ancillary services in the metropolitan area.
Who Bears the Cost
- Franchise owners — face a new statutory sale process, a haircut in appraised value equal to public stadium subsidies, daily fines for noncompliance, and the potential loss of relocation leverage used in stadium negotiations.
- Leagues — must revise ownership and relocation rules, potentially accept government or cooperative owners, and may see increased litigation around league authority versus federal statutory rights.
- State and local governments (potential buyers) — must mobilize capital, prepare for complex acquisitions, and may incur upfront costs to organize cooperatives, secure financing, and manage an acquired franchise.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is between community preservation and private property/market certainty: the Act seeks to protect home communities and limit the use of public subsidies to facilitate moves, but in doing so it constrains owners’ exit options and injects federal mandates into private and league governance—forcing a trade‑off between democratic local control of cultural assets and the investment predictability owners and leagues argue they need to operate a national business.
The Act raises immediate implementation questions. Valuation disputes are likely: using Treasury appraisers creates a central authority for pricing, but the statute does not specify dispute resolution procedures if parties contest the appraisal, nor a timeline for completing appraisals relative to relocation deadlines.
Deducting public stadium subsidies from the appraisal is a blunt rule that ignores how those subsidies were structured (tax credits, land deals, infrastructure) and who benefited; tracing and quantifying ‘‘total’’ government support could generate complex forensic accounting and litigation.
The law also intersects awkwardly with league governance, private contract, and constitutional protections. Leagues may argue that federal intrusion into their ownership standards raises preemption or antitrust concerns; owners may assert takings or due process claims if the forced-sale process effectively compels a sale at below-market net recovery.
The Act attempts to limit interference with collective bargaining, but it does not address stadium lease terms, long‑term lease buyouts, or interstate contractual obligations between owners and leagues. Finally, the one‑year notice period and the cost of daily fines may not map cleanly to business realities—owners could accelerate moves before notice deadlines, or litigate to delay appraisals, leaving communities with protracted uncertainty.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.