Home Team Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Casar, Greg [D-TX-35]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 26, 2026
Bottom line
The Home Team Act of 2026 aims to prevent professional sports teams from relocating by empowering local communities and governments with a right to purchase their home franchises, while also penalizing owners who violate these provisions.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits professional sports leagues from banning government or public ownership of franchises. It mandates that franchise owners offer local entities a fair opportunity to purchase a team before relocating it across state lines or eliminating it. The bill also establishes a federal appraisal process for determining a fair purchase price, which must deduct any past government subsidies provided for stadium construction.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill protects communities from losing valuable economic and cultural assets, prevents the misuse of public funds for stadium construction, and ensures fan bases are not abandoned. They emphasize the significant local impact of sports teams and assert that federal intervention is justified under the interstate commerce clause to safeguard public interest.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely contend that this bill interferes with private business operations, potentially devaluing franchises by forcing sales to specific entities at a reduced price. They might also argue that it oversteps federal authority into local economic matters and could deter future private investment in professional sports.
The bill is relatively short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick review by an informed reader.
Section 2
Congressional Findings on Sports Franchise Impact and Commerce
This section outlines Congress's rationale for the bill, asserting that professional sports franchises have significant economic and cultural impacts on local communities. It highlights the negative consequences of relocation, including the abandonment of fan bases and the detrimental effect of public funds used for stadiums. Crucially, it establishes the basis for federal intervention by citing the Interstate Commerce Clause, noting the national broadcast of games, interstate travel of fans, and revenue-sharing models within leagues.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these findings provide a robust legal and moral justification for federal action, underscoring the public good aspect of sports franchises and the need to protect communities from their arbitrary relocation.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that these findings overstate the federal interest or the negative impacts, potentially mischaracterizing the relationship between franchises and communities to justify undue government intervention.
Tradeoffs
The findings frame the tension between the private business interests of sports franchises and their public role as community assets, setting the stage for regulatory intervention.
Section 3(a)
Prohibition on League Bans Against Public or Community Ownership
This provision explicitly forbids professional sports leagues from including rules or agreements that prohibit ownership of a franchise by a government entity or members of the general public. It also prohibits leagues from preventing the transfer of a franchise to such entities. This aims to remove barriers for communities to acquire ownership of their local teams.
Section 3(b)
Mandated Opportunity for Local Entities to Purchase Relocating Franchises
Before a franchise owner can move a team from its home community across state lines or eliminate the franchise, they must offer a 'fair opportunity' to purchase the franchise to specific local entities. This opportunity is prioritized, first to local government entities or home community cooperatives, then to non-profit organizations or public-private partnerships, and finally to private persons or consortia residing or operating in the community. This creates a right of first refusal for local stakeholders.
Section 3(c)
Federal Appraisal Process for Franchise Fair Price
This section mandates the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a team of professionally trained appraisers to determine a 'fair price' for a franchise when a sale is triggered by a proposed relocation or elimination. Crucially, the appraisal amount must deduct the total amount of any government payment, credit, or subsidy previously provided for the construction of any stadium where the franchise played the majority of its home games. This aims to recoup public investment if a team leaves.
Section 3(d)
Civil Penalties and Private Right of Action for Violations
This section establishes robust enforcement mechanisms for the bill's provisions. It mandates that the Attorney General assess a civil penalty of $30,000 for each day a franchise owner is in violation of the Act. Additionally, it grants units of local government or states a private right of action, allowing them to bring civil actions in district court against a violating franchise owner for both injunctive relief (to stop the relocation) and monetary relief (for damages incurred).
Defines 'community' as the metropolitan statistical area, as determined by the Office of Management and Budget, in which the franchise plays the greatest number of regular season home games within its league.
Section 3(f)(1)
Why it matters:While definitions are typically placed at the end of legislation, this specific definition is central to determining which local entities have the right to purchase a franchise, making it more consequential than a standard technical term.
Case for: Supporters argue this provides a clear, objective, and federally recognized standard for determining a team's home, avoiding ambiguity and potential disputes over local boundaries.
Case against: Critics might contend that relying solely on a metropolitan statistical area might not always align with local sentiment or historical ties, especially if a team plays in a distinct suburb that is part of a larger MSA.
Estimated impact: This definition directly determines the geographic scope of the 'home community' that gains the right of first refusal, impacting which local governments and cooperatives are eligible to purchase a team.
Defines 'proper notice' for proposed relocation or elimination of a franchise, requiring notice not later than one year prior to the commencement of the season, identification of the new location (if applicable), a summary of reasons, and the effective date. This notice must be provided to all interested parties, the news media, and on all social media platforms of the franchise.
Section 3(f)(10)
Why it matters:While it's a definition, the specific requirements for notice are crucial for the practical implementation of the 'opportunity to purchase' provision. Its placement at the end makes it less prominent than if it were in the main operative section.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures transparency and provides sufficient time (one year) for local entities to organize a purchase offer, conduct due diligence, and secure financing, making the right of first refusal genuinely actionable.
Case against: Franchise owners might argue the one-year notice period is too long and restrictive, potentially hindering agile business decisions, confidential negotiations, or the ability to respond quickly to market changes or unforeseen circumstances.
Estimated impact: This provision sets the critical timeline and communication standards for any potential franchise move, directly affecting the feasibility and transparency of the community's opportunity to purchase.