In recent years, the landscape of sports ownership has undergone a significant transformation. While the traditional image of sports teams involved local owners or publicly traded entities, a new paradigm has emerged—privately held conglomerates wielding vast influence and value. Figures like Josh Harris exemplify this shift, creating sprawling sports empires that dominate multiple leagues and generate billions in valuation. Harris, with his deep roots in private equity, has strategically built an empire that owns stakes in some of the most prestigious franchises, including the Washington Commanders, Philadelphia 76ers, and Crystal Palace. This model of concentrated, private ownership has proven remarkably resilient in an era that seems increasingly favorable toward transparency and shareholder voting.
Contrary to some expectations, Harris explicitly dismisses the idea of taking his empire public. His reasoning reflects a broader industry trend—sports assets are currently valued higher as private entities. The allure of maintaining privacy, controlling long-term strategic decisions, and avoiding the volatile pressures of public markets outweighs potential benefits. The distinction is crucial: private ownership allows for sustained investment, risk-taking, and patience, elements that are often compromised when a team is subjected to quarterly earnings reports and shareholder scrutiny. Harris’s stance underscores the importance of flexibility and control in managing elite sports assets—areas where public markets can be a hindrance, not a help.
Public vs. Private: The Value Dilemma
Current market valuations tend to favor private ownership, especially in high-profile sports franchises. Harris’s assertion that public valuations generally lag behind private valuations is not just a personal opinion but a reflection of market dynamics. The few publicly traded sports entities, like Madison Square Garden’s holdings, consistently trade below their intrinsic value. This discrepancy reveals a fundamental truth: the true worth of sports assets is often obscured when they are subjected to the vicissitudes of the open market.
For owners like Harris, the ability to develop stadiums, invest in long-term team success, and pursue strategic growth without immediate market pressures provides a distinctive advantage. Moreover, the industry’s culture traditionally favors patience—generally, sports teams are viewed as intergenerational assets that accrue value over decades, not quarters. Public ownership, with its inherent need for short-term profitability, risks diluting this cultural fabric. Harris’s comments highlight an entrenched conservatism among sports owners, who prefer privacy and control above all else—an attitude that is unlikely to shift soon.
The Economics of Stadiums and Long-Term Investments
Harris’s recent success with the Commanders exemplifies this long-horizon approach. His negotiations to relocate the team to a new stadium are emblematic of the investments private owners are willing to make that don’t pay off immediately. Such projects require years—sometimes decades—to realize their full profitability and community impact. Public markets, with their quarterly valuation cycles, often struggle to accommodate this patience, making them unattractive venues for major sports assets.
This trend is reinforced by the NFL’s openness to private equity involvement. The league’s decision to permit minority stakes from private equity firms acknowledges the growing importance of long-term capital and strategic partnerships outside the traditional ownership model. Harris’s positive outlook on this development reveals confidence that big investors can support teams’ growth without demanding control or short-term returns. It also suggests that a mix of private wealth and institutional investment may define the future of sports ownership, emphasizing stability, strategic growth, and long-term wealth preservation over short-term gains.
The Future of Sports Ownership: Is Public Fuss Inevitable?
Despite the rising valuations and the allure of liquidity that going public might offer, Harris’s skepticism signifies a core truth: the dark allure of privacy, control, and long-term strategic planning fundamentally aligns with private ownership. The modern sports industry, with its multi-billion valuations, continues to favor those willing to prioritize stability over transparency. The notion that public markets could suddenly unlock greater value is, in Harris’s eyes—and arguably in the industry’s—itself a myth.
The quiet power of private ownership manifests in the ability to make bold decisions—relocation, stadium development, strategic partnerships—that would be impossible within the constrains of a publicly traded framework. This decentralized but concentrated model ensures that owners retain the latitude necessary to maximize team potential and sustain value across generations. As long as privately held entities can secure favorable valuations and industry support, the era of public listings for sports franchises remains an unlikely reality—despite the market’s fascination with liquidity and transparency.
In essence, the private sports empire is not just about wealth; it’s about retaining control over the most valuable entertainment assets on earth. And until public markets can reconcile their shortcomings with the unique demands of sports ownership, those assets are unlikely to leave the privacy of their exclusive domains.
Leave a Reply