AT A GLANCE
- The Home Team Act would require team owners to give communities a chance to buy franchises before relocating
- Lawmakers say the bill targets relocation threats used to secure taxpayer funded stadium deals
- The Chicago Bears were cited as a current example of a team exploring a potential move
- In San Antonio, Project Marvel discussions tied to the Spurs raised similar concerns about long term team stability
Home Team Act Aims to Keep Teams in Place and Give Communities a Chance to Buy
A new federal proposal is aiming to change how professional sports teams relocate, placing local communities at the center of the decision.
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar introduced the Home Team Act on March 26, a bill designed to require franchise owners to give cities and local buyers a chance to purchase a team before it moves.
Lawmakers say the measure responds to a long running pattern in professional sports, where owners use relocation threats to secure taxpayer funded stadium deals.
“The American people are sick and tired of billionaires threatening to move the sports teams they own to different states unless they get hundreds of millions in corporate welfare,” Sanders said. “Professional sports teams should be owned and controlled by the fans who love them, not multibillionaire oligarchs.”
Casar framed the legislation as a fairness issue for both fans and taxpayers.
“Far too many Americans know the pain of losing a team, and far too many communities have had to fork over billions in subsidies just to keep an already profitable team home,” he said.
How the Home Team Act Would Work
Under the proposed law, team owners would be required to provide at least one year’s notice before relocating a franchise across state lines or into a new metropolitan area.
During that window, local governments, nonprofits, private groups, or individuals would have the opportunity to purchase the team at a fair market value determined by independent appraisers.
The bill outlines several key provisions:
- A mandatory one year notice before relocation
- A formal opportunity for local buyers to purchase the team
- Eligibility for public or private ownership models, including community ownership
- Penalties for owners who fail to comply
- Legal standing for state and local governments to challenge violations
The legislation does not require anyone to buy a team and would still allow relocation if no qualified buyer meets the price
Packers Model Serves as Blueprint
Supporters of the bill point to the Green Bay Packers as a successful example of community ownership in professional sports.
The NFL franchise is owned by shareholders rather than a single billionaire owner, a structure lawmakers say keeps the team rooted in its city and aligned with fan interests.
The Home Team Act would open the door for similar ownership models in other leagues, though it does not mandate them.
Chicago Bears, Stadium Deals Highlight Urgency
The proposal comes as several teams across major sports leagues weigh relocation or stadium upgrades tied to public funding.
Sen. Bernie Sanders specifically pointed to the Bears’ ongoing stadium situation as a real time example of why the Home Team Act is needed. The team has explored leaving Chicago, with Indiana offering potential incentives tied to a new stadium deal.
Casar described the situation as a competition between taxpayers.
Under the proposed legislation, a move like that would trigger a requirement for ownership to first offer the team to local buyers.
“Even when teams don’t actually move, the threat of moving sets off a race to the bottom,” he said. “Billionaire owners pit taxpayers against one another.”
Team relocation has impacted cities for generations, from the Brooklyn Dodgers leaving New York in 1958 to more recent moves like the Oakland Athletics relocating to Las Vegas.
In many cases, cities have responded by offering significant public subsidies to retain teams, even when franchises are already valued in the billions.
Supporters of the Home Team Act argue the bill would reduce that pressure by removing relocation as a bargaining tool.
What It Could Mean for Cities Like San Antonio
While the legislation is national in scope, its implications are local, especially in San Antonio following the recent Project Marvel discussions tied to the San Antonio Spurs.
Cities like San Antonio, which have invested heavily in professional sports and economic development tied to teams, could benefit from added protections against sudden relocations.
During the Project Marvel process, the possibility of the Spurs’ long term future became part of the conversation, even as team leadership avoided directly connecting the development and arena plans to relocation.
The bill would give communities leverage they currently lack, particularly when negotiating with ownership groups over stadium funding or long term commitments, ensuring that cities are not left navigating high stakes decisions without a clear opportunity to keep their teams rooted locally.
Uncertain Path Forward in Congress
Despite backing from several Democratic lawmakers, the Home Team Act faces a challenging road to becoming law.
The bill would need bipartisan support to advance, and its chances of passing remain unclear in the current political environment.
Casar acknowledged the difficulty but emphasized the broader goal.
“We have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time,” he said, noting that lawmakers can address national issues while also working to protect sports fans and local economies.
For now, the proposal adds a new layer to an ongoing national conversation about who really controls professional sports and who pays the price when teams decide to move.
