Home Team Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 26, 2026
Bottom line
The Home Team Act aims to prevent professional sports team relocations by empowering local communities and governments to purchase franchises, while penalizing owners who move teams without offering this opportunity and accounting for public stadium investments.
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 the franchise before relocating it across state lines or eliminating it. The 'fair price' for such a purchase would deduct any public funds previously used for stadium construction, and non-compliance would incur significant daily civil penalties.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill protects communities from losing valuable economic and cultural assets, prevents the misuse of public funds for private stadium deals, and ensures that the public, which often supports these teams through taxes and loyalty, has a direct say in their future. They contend it addresses the imbalance of power between wealthy owners and local communities.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill interferes with private property rights and free market principles, could deter investment in sports franchises, and that government ownership could lead to political interference in sports operations. They may also contend that the 'fair market value' calculation, with its deduction for public subsidies, is punitive and retroactively alters business agreements.
The bill is concise, allowing for a quick read, but its implications are broad and require deeper consideration of its legal, economic, and political ramifications.
Section 3(a)
Prohibition on League Bans of Public or Community Ownership
This provision prevents professional sports leagues from having rules or agreements that forbid government entities or the general public from owning a franchise. It also prohibits leagues from blocking the transfer of a franchise to such entities, thereby opening up ownership possibilities beyond traditional private investors.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this democratizes ownership, allowing communities to directly invest in and control assets that are deeply tied to local identity and public good, fostering greater accountability and stability.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue this infringes on the private contractual rights of leagues and existing owners, potentially complicating league governance, ownership structures, and the ability to attract private capital.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances private league autonomy and existing ownership structures with the public interest in sports franchises and the desire for local control.
Section 3(b)(1)
Mandated Opportunity for Local Purchase Before Relocation or Elimination
Before a franchise owner can move a team across state lines or eliminate it entirely, they must offer specific local entities a 'fair opportunity' to purchase the franchise. This is a core mechanism designed to give communities a direct means to retain their teams.
Section 3(b)(2)
Defined Purchase Priority for Local Stakeholders
This section establishes a clear hierarchy for who gets the first chance to purchase a franchise when it's offered for sale due to a proposed relocation or elimination. Local government entities or home community cooperatives get first priority, followed by local nonprofits or public-private partnerships, and then private persons or consortia residing or operating in the community.
Section 3(c)
Fair Market Value Appraisal with Public Subsidy Deduction
The Secretary of the Treasury is tasked with establishing a team of professional appraisers to determine a 'fair price' for a franchise. Crucially, this appraisal must deduct the total amount of any government payments, credits, or subsidies provided for the construction of any stadium where the franchise played the majority of its home games. This aims to account for public investment when a team is sold or moved.
Section 3(d)
Enforcement Mechanisms: Civil Penalties and Private Right of Action
This section outlines how the bill would be enforced. The Attorney General can assess a civil penalty of $30,000 for each day a franchise owner violates the provisions of the Act. Additionally, a unit of local government or a State can bring a civil action in federal court to seek injunctive relief (to stop a relocation) and monetary relief (damages) for violations.
Defines "community" as the metropolitan statistical area (MSA), 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 it is standard legislative practice to consolidate definitions, the specific wording of this definition is critical for determining the geographic scope of the bill's applicability and identifying which local entities have the right to purchase.
Case for: Supporters argue this provides a clear, objective, and federally recognized standard for identifying the 'home' community, avoiding ambiguity and potential disputes over jurisdiction or local connection.
Case against: Critics might argue that MSAs can be large and diverse, potentially diluting the concept of a truly 'local' community or excluding smaller, deeply connected municipalities within the broader area that might feel a stronger connection to the team.
Estimated impact: Directly impacts which governmental and community entities are eligible to exercise the right to purchase, and thus the practical reach of the bill's core provisions.
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 proposed new home location (if applicable), a summary of reasons, and dissemination to all interested parties, the news media, and on all social media platforms of the franchise.
Section 3(f)(10)
Why it matters:While technical specifications are often placed in definitions, the comprehensive nature of this notice requirement is a significant operational detail that ensures transparency and public engagement, rather than just a simple clarification.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures maximum transparency and gives the community ample time (one year) to organize a purchase effort, preventing sudden, unannounced moves and fostering public discourse.
Case against: Franchise owners might argue the one-year notice period is overly restrictive and the broad dissemination requirements (e.g., 'all social media platforms') are burdensome, potentially complicating confidential business negotiations and creating unnecessary public speculation.
Estimated impact: Significantly increases transparency and lead time for communities to react to potential franchise moves, while imposing substantial communication obligations on franchise owners.