There are several multi-team conglomerates, but they’re still more the exception than the rule. Expect that to change quickly. 

The headline on the Lakers' sale was the $10 billion price tag. But it’s also worth noting the sale is set up to go to Mark Walter, who is also the majority owner of the LA Dodgers. This marks the continuing evolution of what we could call Ownership v3.2. Here’s the short history:

Ownership 1.0 - Civic Leaders

Local business leaders and/or prominent families owned sports franchises in much the same way they supported museums and opera houses. Teams were run less for business motives than as a symbol of local standing.

Ownership 2.0 - Status Symbol

As professional sports became more prominent and profitable, they became less symbols of civic pride than of professional accomplishment. Owning a team showed you were big time. Some billionaires bought yachts, others bought sports teams. Making money was great, but it was a side hustle with benefits.

Ownership 3.0 - Consortium

As valuations accelerated, the local sports team went from a local institution to an asset class. Investment groups came in to take advantage of reliable and growing revenue streams.

Ownership 3.2 is the evolution of the Consortium stage to include Multi-Club Ownership (MCO). It is a logical extension of the same economic forces. A sampling of the US-based examples includes:

Based on an analysis of publicly available data, there are at least 16 multi-team ownership groups controlling a minimum of 36 major professional sports teams in the United States and Canada. There are even more multi-team owners outside North America with interests in multiple soccer teams across the world. While there are still 1.0 owners like the Halas family clinging on in Chicago, there are several factors that will make multi-team ownership the preferred model going forward.

The RossArctos Sports Franchise Index (RASFI) analysis of the largest North American leagues shows that, over the past three years, sports teams have earned over double the return of US or global equities with less volatility. That has drawn investors, but the escalation in media rights fees that has driven that growth is not likely to continue at a similar pace. This will lead owners to seek gains in other areas, which will help drive the multi-team model from both a revenue and cost perspective.

As teams have gotten more advanced, they’ve had to invest in more infrastructure than just a stadium and a ticket office. Having multiple teams allows MCOs to spread these costs over a greater number of assets, such as:

Tech Stack: Teams need a sophisticated ticketing system, a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system, a Content Management System (CMS), and other tech applications required to manage modern teams. Being able to apply those systems across multiple teams lowers the per-team cost of that tech deployment. 

Management and Administration: The growing sophistication and fragmentation of marketing has led to larger teams to handle the higher complexity. Yet there is a cadence to that that necessitates this staff going from being fully utilized to underutilized in the course of a typical season. Applied across multiple teams and varying seasons, these resources can be applied more consistently and efficiently across multiple teams. The same applies to many other functions within a team.

In general, multi-team models increase efficiencies that lower operating costs for each individual team.

MCOs also open up more revenue opportunities for ownership. 

Sponsors - As teams compete for sponsorship fees, a multi-team offering provides a greater canvas from which to create potential deals. They can provide a one-stop shop for sponsors looking to tap into multiple sports fan audiences. It also provides more opportunities to nurture and maximize successful sponsor partnerships by being able to sustain a higher number of sponsor relationships over multiple properties.

Fan Scale and Data - Multiple teams also give owners a larger database of fans to leverage. Whether it’s to drive sponsorship activations or to increase team revenues, having a larger record of fans for whom you have geographic, demographic, and other information provides more cross-selling opportunities.

There are some multi-team ownership groups, like MSE, that are focused on a particular region of the country. This opens up further opportunities around critical factors like real estate. Mixed-use developments centered around sports facilities like Battery Park in Atlanta are an increasingly appealing model surrounding new stadium construction. Having multiple sports facilities or shared facilities in the same development increases the year-round foot traffic and further boosts the revenue potential of this approach. 

Also, as MCOs seek limited partners or other investors, they offer a more diversified revenue stream than a single team. Revenues and profits become less subject to the ups and downs of any one team. So, MCOs may enjoy a funding advantage as well. 

Combining all these factors suggests that, absent regulations from the leagues involved, the MCO model will inevitably become the structure of choice. 

In a telling weekend for the global sports landscape, a fierce battle for viewership unfolded, not on a pitch but across television screens. The results offered a compelling narrative about the rising power of women's sports and raised significant questions about the appeal of even the most star-studded men's competitions. England's commanding 6-1 victory over Wales in the UEFA Women's Euro 2025 group stage decisively captured the UK audience, more than doubling the viewership for the men's FIFA Club World Cup final. This ratings showdown provides a crucial data point for understanding the evolving tastes of modern sports fans and where the Club World Cup truly stands in a crowded market.

On the evening of July 13th, two major soccer events went head-to-head with revealing results that painted a vivid picture of the modern sports media environment. The UEFA Women's Euro 2025 match, a high-stakes home nations clash between England and Wales, was a resounding success for UK broadcaster ITV. The match was more than just a game; it was a national event, brimming with the kind of authentic rivalry and patriotic fervor that captivates a nation. The Lionesses, playing on home soil, delivered a spectacular performance, resulting in a 6-1 victory that drew an impressive average of 4.2 million viewers and peaked at 4.6 million. This figure is particularly noteworthy as it was driven almost entirely by a single market, demonstrating the immense domestic appeal of the team and the tournament. The broadcast gave ITV its strongest Sunday night performance of the year, proving that when presented on a major, accessible channel, women's international soccer is a ratings juggernaut.

In stark contrast, the newly expanded FIFA Club World Cup final struggled to gain equivalent traction, despite its billing as a global showcase. The match featured a top English club, Chelsea, securing a comfortable 3-0 victory over French powerhouse Paris Saint-Germain. However, the final averaged just 1.1 million viewers on the UK's Channel 5, peaking at 2.3 million. In the United States, a crucial market for soccer's growth, the final on TBS garnered a modest 1.3 million viewers. While not insignificant, these numbers fell far short of expectations for a tournament FIFA has heavily promoted. The scheduling, which placed it in direct competition with the Euros, and its perceived lack of history and prestige, meant it failed to create a "can't-miss" atmosphere. The figures suggest the tournament has yet to establish a clear identity or resonate deeply with a broad audience, even when local teams are successful.

To accurately gauge the Club World Cup's performance, it's essential to look at its direct competitors in the sports media landscape. The focus on U.S. viewership is particularly critical. With the FIFA World Cup returning to North America in 2026, every major soccer broadcast serves as a barometer for the sport's health and growth potential in a market it has long sought to conquer. Understanding how a FIFA-branded tournament fares against established American sports provides vital insight into the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

With a U.S. audience of 1.3 million, the Club World Cup final finds itself in a very competitive and crowded tier:

Successes: The primary success story remains the undeniable growth of international women's soccer. The Women's Euros demonstrated that with compelling storylines, national pride, and primetime broadcast slots, the audience is massive and engaged. For the Lionesses to draw such a large domestic audience against a men's club final is a monumental achievement.

Failures: The Club World Cup's ratings, when placed in proper context, must be viewed as a significant disappointment for FIFA. It failed to outperform a regular-season MLB game or a top-tier Premier League match in the key U.S. market. The bloated format and questionable placement in an already saturated calendar have been heavily criticized, and these viewership numbers validate those concerns. The tournament failed to create a sense of urgency or prestige, coming across as a commercially driven event rather than a pinnacle of sporting achievement.

The Path Forward: The data presents a clear lesson: context and narrative are king. The passion and history inherent in established leagues and national team tournaments are powerful drivers of viewership that manufactured competitions struggle to replicate. For FIFA, the underwhelming U.S. numbers for the Club World Cup should be a wake-up call. As the 2026 World Cup approaches, building momentum and capturing the imagination of the American public is paramount. The tournament cannot just compete for the attention of die-hard soccer fans; it must fight for space in a general sports media market against established properties like MLB and the NHL.

As it stands, the Club World Cup is a mid-tier sports property by U.S. viewership standards. To grow and to help build the foundation for a successful World Cup, FIFA must build a tradition that fans can connect with emotionally. Simply assembling top clubs is not enough. As the ratings show, an event's prestige is not just declared; it must be earned in the hearts and minds of the fans who ultimately decide what's worth watching.

$4.05 Million- Jannik Sinner celebrated a historic Wimbledon victory, earning a cool $4.05 million in prize money. However, before he could even plan his victory pizza party, financial experts pointed out that a hefty chunk of that will be gobbled up by taxes. Thanks to the UK's tax laws for non-resident athletes, his take-home pay will be closer to $2.5 million. It’s a classic case of winning the lottery and then immediately meeting your new business partner: the government.

$52.8 Million- The University of Central Florida and the University of Memphis have both set new records for athletic fundraising. UCF pulled in a whopping $52.8 million, marking its fourth straight year of raising over $40 million. It seems that in the new era of college sports, the most important offense is a good fundraising campaign.

$900 Million- Austin FC, the only major pro sports team in the Texas capital, has brought on five new local investors in a deal that values the club at over $900 million. At this valuation, they’re not just an MLS club; they’re a financial unicorn that also happens to play soccer on the weekends.

Do you have a topic you want us to cover, a survey question you'd like us to ask, or any news you'd like to share? Let us know at [email protected].