David Egozi — Just over a year after a league-shifting decision to allow private equity (“PE”) firms to own up to ten percent of National Football League (“NFL”) franchises, the league is reportedly considering whether to expand that limit. This move brings the NFL in line with other major professional sports leagues, such as the NBA, MLB, NHL, and MLS, all of which had each embraced PE investment years earlier. The cautious 10% opening signals a shift in league philosophy, prompting the following question: Can the NFL open the door wider without undermining the legal and governance principles that have shaped professional football ownership for decades?
The Shift to PE Investment
In August 2024, NFL owners passed 2024 Resolution JC-7. In a 31-1 vote, the owners approved allowing a select group of vetted PE firms to purchase up to 10% of a franchise as passive, non-voting investors. This made for a stark change; before, the NFL prohibited institutional investment entirely and imposed strict criteria for potential buyers to enter the league’s ownership circle. Any prospective buyer would require 75% approval amongst existing owners, and the lead investor was responsible for personally providing 30% of the capital needed to complete the purchase.
Under the new framework, this group of preapproved PE firms can now hold minority ownership interest in NFL teams. To obtain an ownership interest in this lenient model, PE firms must (1) own more than three percent of the team, (2) refrain from investing in more than six franchises, and (3) maintain each investment for at least six years. Additional requirements include a minimum of $2 billion in committed capital for funds, and no more than 20% of a fund’s total capital can be invested into a single team. These safeguards were put in place to avoid challenges to the league’s governance structure, keeping decision making responsibilities in the hands of the controlling owner.
Why Raise the Cap?
At the start of the season, only three teams—Miami Dolphins, Buffalo Bills and Los Angeles Chargers—have taken advantage of the new league policy. While this small number might indicate a sense of caution amongst league owners, the league still views the policy as a success. Commissioner Roger Goodell, speaking at Leaders Week in London, emphasized that although the NFL was the last major sports league to permit private equity ownership, the change has proven highly successful. While the policy was intended to give owners greater liquidity, it has also brought fresh business perspectives and new avenues for growth.
Regardless, the lack of interest to participate in this new policy by other teams may be an indication that perhaps the NFL is not ready for institutional investment. Alternatively, it may suggest that the framework is designed to evolve gradually. Ideally, it will improve through trial, error, and time. These PE firms already have invaluable experience working with other professional sports teams. One area where that expertise could be especially useful is in supporting the league’s efforts towards international expansion.
With games now in Brazil, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Germany, and Spain, the NFL has a clear goal towards global expansion. The strategy appears to be paying off, as the 2024 Super Bowl saw a ten percent increase in international viewership compared to the prior year. By partnering with PE firms, franchises can expand their global presence and strengthen community engagement, presenting an opportunity to grow the league brand and create new revenue streams. Because of the league’s new capital and global growth, it is understandable to see the NFL in favor of PE influence in the league. However, while PE offers a pathway to growth, it also raises difficult questions about governance and control the NFL must consider.
Downside to Expansion: Legal and Governance Concerns
Voting power restrictions placed on the PE funds, specifically the prohibition of voting power, reflect a cautious, “wait-and-see” approach by the NFL. From a governance standpoint, this is sensible. Once ownership percentages increase beyond a purely symbolic minority stake, investors may begin to push for greater influence. Whether this comes in the form of voting rights, board representation or enhanced protections, any expansion of permissible ownership would likely be accompanied by a reevaluation of governance rights.
However, such a shift could prove controversial. The NFL’s existing rules intentionally keep decision making power in the hands of long-standing families and lead investors who have shaped the league’s identity and stability for decades. The central question is whether the financial upside of deeper PE participation justifies the risk of potentially diluting that concentrated control. Looking to other major leagues that have already opened the door to institutional investment may offer valuable insight into how the NFL should approach this challenge. For instance, while the NBA, NHL, and MLS each allow private equity funds to own up to 20% of a franchise, and MLB and the NWSL permit up to 15%, the NFL limits such ownership to just 10%. The NFL also requires investors to hold their stakes for at least six years—a restriction not clearly mirrored in other leagues. By contrast, the NBA began with an exclusive arrangement through Dyal’s HomeCourt fund before quickly transitioning to a broader, more open framework. These structural differences illustrate how other leagues have approached institutional involvement, offering a model the NFL could adapt as it reassesses its own approach.
Conclusion
The NFL’s move into private equity ownership represents a pivotal turning point in the league’s evolution. While it remains one of the most profitable sports enterprises in the world, the league is still guided by traditions of continuity and concentrated family ownership. Resolution JC-7 reflects this tension, offering liquidity through a tightly regulated framework that preserves long-standing governance norms. Yet as pressure builds to expand beyond the current 10% cap, the NFL will face the same crossroads other leagues have already encountered. The ultimate challenge is not merely whether to allow larger stakes, but how to craft rules that invite new capital while safeguarding the stability and identity that have defined professional football for decades.
