I was listening to a segment on sports radio this morning taking kids to school and they were talking about new styles of ownerships across the leagues and now the NFL. Was brought up with Bucks changing a minority owner but talked a lot about NFL ownerships too.
I didn't realize this but in 2018 the NFL got rid of rules that didn't allow for people or groups to own teams in different markets, ie, you couldn't own Brewers and part of the patriots or couldn't own Browns and Indians because they didn't want someone to have a controlling interest over marketing to drive one up or down to benefit the other. I can see how that could get complicated.
So now instead of being owned by families or having an "owner" now more bids seem to be coming in where people are acting as equity investment firms, hedge fund managers etc. This guy was was a professor of sports marketing, i forget where. Anyway his point was how subtle changes could really affect the lay of the land going forward. Equity managers don't have or can't have an allegiance to a team, they legally have it to their shareholders and to make them money. As this becomes more common it could be less is thought of about the city or the fans and more about how does this make my investors money.
and it's not long term thinking because the nature of the business requires about every 7 years or so, give or take, they buy and sell new interests because at that point they owe their shareholders. I briefly thought of how GB doesn't have a single owner, but then we're not set up at all like what this guy was talking about so I don't think it's very relatable. But I'm not a money guy. Maybe some of our bankers can chime in. On the surface, I don't like much as a fan of the league.
I didn't realize this but in 2018 the NFL got rid of rules that didn't allow for people or groups to own teams in different markets, ie, you couldn't own Brewers and part of the patriots or couldn't own Browns and Indians because they didn't want someone to have a controlling interest over marketing to drive one up or down to benefit the other. I can see how that could get complicated.
So now instead of being owned by families or having an "owner" now more bids seem to be coming in where people are acting as equity investment firms, hedge fund managers etc. This guy was was a professor of sports marketing, i forget where. Anyway his point was how subtle changes could really affect the lay of the land going forward. Equity managers don't have or can't have an allegiance to a team, they legally have it to their shareholders and to make them money. As this becomes more common it could be less is thought of about the city or the fans and more about how does this make my investors money.
and it's not long term thinking because the nature of the business requires about every 7 years or so, give or take, they buy and sell new interests because at that point they owe their shareholders. I briefly thought of how GB doesn't have a single owner, but then we're not set up at all like what this guy was talking about so I don't think it's very relatable. But I'm not a money guy. Maybe some of our bankers can chime in. On the surface, I don't like much as a fan of the league.
