The Rise of the Player-Owner: How Athletes Are Buying Into the Teams They Play For

Professional sports have long been defined by the line between the athletes on the field and the executives in the boardroom. Historically, players focused solely on performance, while team ownership was the domain of wealthy families, corporations, and media conglomerates. But that line has blurred dramatically over the past three decades. A growing number of athletes are now crossing from the locker room into the ownership suite—sometimes even while still active on the roster. This emergence of player-owners represents one of the most significant shifts in the business of sports, reflecting broader trends in athlete wealth, empowerment, and career ambition.

The concept of a player who also holds an equity stake in his or her team is no longer a novelty. It is a strategic move that allows athletes to secure long-term financial stability, shape team culture, and build influence that extends far beyond retirement. As of 2025, major North American leagues have negotiated collective bargaining agreements that expressly permit active players to hold ownership shares, subject to strict conflict-of-interest rules. This article traces the evolution of the player-owner model, examines the driving forces behind its growth, profiles some of its most notable figures, and explores the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

The Origins of Player Ownership

While the modern player-owner phenomenon is often associated with the late 1990s and early 2000s, its roots go back much further. In the early days of professional baseball and football, many league founders were themselves players. For example, George Halas, a player-coach for the Decatur Staleys (later the Chicago Bears), bought the franchise in 1921 and served as owner, coach, and player for years. Similarly, Connie Mack managed and owned the Philadelphia Athletics while occasionally even stepping onto the field. However, these were outlier figures who operated during a time before leagues imposed clear separation between ownership and playing roles.

It was not until the era of free agency and skyrocketing player salaries that the financial means for widespread player-ownership became available. In the 1970s and 1980s, star athletes began earning enough to consider investing in teams—but league rules often prohibited active players from owning stakes in their own or any competing franchise. The NBA, for instance, explicitly barred players from owning any portion of a team until the 1995 collective bargaining agreement softened those restrictions, allowing for limited minority stakes. This opened the door for a new kind of ownership that blended playing careers with business foresight.

Pioneers: From Jordan to Johnson

The most famous early adopter of the modern player-owner model is Michael Jordan. After retiring from the Chicago Bulls in 1993, Jordan purchased a minority stake in the NBA's Washington Wizards and even returned to play for the team in 2001. Though he eventually sold that stake, he later became majority owner of the Charlotte Hornets in 2010, making him the first former player to control an NBA franchise. Jordan's path inspired a generation of athletes to view ownership as a legitimate post-career goal.

Another trailblazer is Magic Johnson, who invested in a range of sports properties including the Los Angeles Dodgers, Los Angeles Sparks, and Los Angeles FC. Johnson never played for those teams, but his role as a player-turned-investor showed that athletes could leverage their fame and business acumen to buy into franchises alongside traditional ownership groups. In the NFL, Jerry Richardson, a former NFL player, became owner of the Carolina Panthers in 1993—though his case remains an outlier because league rules still largely prevent active players from holding stakes.

Key Milestones in Player-Ownership

The growth of player-ownership has been marked by several pivotal moments. Below is a timeline of the most significant events that shaped the landscape.

  • 1995 NBA CBA: The NBA becomes the first major U.S. league to explicitly allow active players to hold limited minority stakes in teams, provided they do not play for that team.
  • 2001 – Michael Jordan Plays for the Wizards: Jordan's return to the court while holding an ownership stake (later divested) highlights the complexities of the dual role.
  • 2010 – Jordan Becomes Majority Owner: He purchases the Charlotte Bobcats (now Hornets), becoming the first former player to control an NBA team.
  • 2018 – NFL Relaxes Ownership Rules: The NFL modifies its constitution to permit a limited number of active players to hold minority ownership stakes, a move driven by the success of the NBA model.
  • 2022 – MLB Player-Ownership at the All-Star Game: A group of active players, including Mookie Betts, invests in a minor league team, signaling that player-ownership is extending beyond the major leagues.
  • 2023 – WNBA Player-ownership Expands: The Seattle Storm and Las Vegas Aces both welcome former players as minority owners, with Sue Bird and Tamika Catchings taking stakes.

These milestones show a steady liberalization of league policies, driven by player demands and the recognition that athlete involvement can be good for business.

Factors Driving the Phenomenon

A confluence of economic, social, and structural factors has accelerated the trend of player-ownership. Understanding these forces helps explain why the model is no longer a rarity but an increasingly standard aspiration for elite athletes.

Financial Firepower

Today's top athletes earn salaries that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. The highest-paid NBA players now command over $40 million per year, NFL quarterbacks earn $50 million-plus annually, and MLB stars can sign contracts worth $300 million or more. This wealth provides the capital needed to buy into team ownership, which often requires tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, athletes are increasingly financially literate, working with advisors and investment firms to diversify their portfolios. As Forbes has noted, the top-earning athletes are often as skilled at investing as they are at playing their sport.

Desire for Legacy and Influence

Retirement from professional sports is notoriously difficult. Many athletes struggle with the loss of identity, structure, and purpose. Ownership offers a way to stay connected to the game while building a lasting legacy. Instead of merely being remembered for a jersey number or a championship ring, player-owners can shape the future direction of their franchise, influence community initiatives, and mentor younger players. For example, Magic Johnson has used his Dodgers ownership stake to promote inner-city baseball programs and invest in South Los Angeles. This sense of mission often drives athletes to pursue ownership even when the financial returns are not immediately obvious.

Changing League Governance

Leagues have gradually come to see player-ownership as beneficial rather than threatening. Opponents once argued that players would have conflicts of interest—for instance, a player-owner might push for higher salaries or favorable scheduling. But in practice, minority stakes do not grant control over daily operations, and most leagues impose strict safeguards: a player cannot simultaneously play for and own a stake in the same team (the "Jordan Rule"), and any ownership interest must be disclosed and approved. As these rules have been refined, league commissioners have embraced the marketing and community relations value of having famous athletes as part-owners. As a result, collective bargaining agreements now routinely include provisions for limited ownership.

In the 2020s, athletes have become more vocal about social justice, community investment, and economic empowerment. Ownership allows them to put their money and influence where their values are. Player-owners can demand that franchises hire diverse executives, fund community centers, or pledge to environmental sustainability. This activism is not limited to the United States; in European football, players have formed fan-owned clubs or taken stakes in lower-division teams. The movement is global and reflects a broader shift toward athlete-led social change.

Notable Player-Owners Today

To appreciate the breadth of the player-owner phenomenon, it helps to examine specific individuals who have made the transition. The following profiles highlight players from different sports and eras who have bought in—sometimes while still playing.

Michael Jordan – NBA (Charlotte Hornets)

Jordan remains the most iconic player-owner. He bought a controlling stake in the Charlotte Bobcats in 2010 for approximately $175 million and sold his majority share in 2023, retaining a minority interest. During his tenure, Jordan was hands-on, attending games, influencing player personnel decisions, and pushing for a new arena. His net worth has grown to over $3 billion, largely thanks to his ownership and endorsement portfolio. Jordan's path demonstrated that a player could transition from star to mogul without losing relevance. ESPN covered the sale extensively, calling it the end of an era.

Magic Johnson – MLB, NBA, MLS (Los Angeles Dodgers, Sparks, LAFC)

Earvin "Magic" Johnson retired from basketball in 1996 with a vision of becoming a business titan. He joined the ownership group of the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2012 as part of a $2.15 billion acquisition. He also owns a stake in the Los Angeles Sparks (WNBA) and was a founding investor in Los Angeles FC (MLS). Johnson is unique because he never played for these teams, but his brand and business savvy have been invaluable. His involvement has helped the Dodgers win the 2020 World Series and has promoted community engagement in South Central LA.

David Robinson – NBA (San Antonio Spurs)

Admiral David Robinson, a Hall of Fame center and two-time NBA champion with the Spurs, took a different route. After retirement, he remained in San Antonio and founded the Carver Academy and other charitable ventures. In 2020, he joined a group of investors that bought a minority stake in the Spurs from Peter Holt. Robinson's ownership is relatively small but symbolic: a beloved franchise legend returns to the organization as a part-owner, ensuring his voice in team affairs without any conflict.

Active Players with Ownership Stakes

The trend has even reached active rosters. In the NBA, Kevin Durant is a minority owner of the Philadelphia Union (MLS) and has invested in other franchises. In MLB, Mookie Betts and several other players bought into the minor league Hickory Crawdads. In the NFL, despite stricter rules, a handful of players like Peyton Manning (Denver Broncos minority owner) have post-retirement stakes. However, Manning's stake was acquired after his playing career ended, adhering to league rules. The most notable active player-owner is LeBron James, who has expressed interest in owning an NBA team in Las Vegas once he retires. He already owns a stake in Liverpool FC (English Premier League) and the Boston Red Sox via Fenway Sports Group, though these are not teams he plays for.

Impact on Leagues and Communities

Player-owners bring more than just capital; they bring a unique perspective that can reshape how teams interact with fans and their communities.

Player-Friendly Policies

Former players in ownership roles often champion policies that benefit the athlete experience. For example, some player-owners have pushed for better mental health resources, reduced game schedule demands, and enhanced retirement plans. Because they have lived the life, they understand the physical and mental toll of professional sports. This can lead to more empathetic management. The NBA's successful mental health initiatives are partly attributed to former player-turned-executive efforts.

Community Investment

Player-owners frequently invest in the communities surrounding their teams. Magic Johnson's investment in the Dodgers included a commitment to hire from underprivileged neighborhoods and fund youth baseball leagues. Similarly, Jordan's Hornets Foundation donated millions to Charlotte-area education and housing programs. When athletes own part of a team, they are more likely to ensure the team serves as a community pillar rather than just a profit center.

Diversity and Inclusion

The pipeline to ownership has historically been dominated by white male billionaires. Player-ownership has begun to diversify those upper ranks. Black athletes like Jordan, Johnson, and Robinson now hold significant equity stakes, and female players like Sue Bird and Tamika Catchings have ownership in the WNBA. This shift encourages leagues to adopt more inclusive governance structures, including hiring more diverse coaches and front-office staff. The NBA's Rooney Rule for head coaches was inspired partly by the advocacy of player-owners who pushed for equitable hiring.

Challenges and Criticisms

While player-ownership is generally celebrated, it is not without complications. Critics raise several legitimate concerns.

Conflicts of Interest

The most obvious issue is the potential conflict between a player's role as an athlete and as an owner. For example, a player-owner might vote on league revenue-sharing policies that affect his own salary demands. To mitigate this, leagues have strict rules: active players cannot own stakes in the team they play for, and they cannot participate in league governance votes related to labor or economic issues. Still, the line can be blurry. When Michael Jordan played for the Wizards while owning shares, it caused a temporary media firestorm. The league eventually forced him to sell his stake during his playing stint.

Financial Barriers

Most players cannot afford even a minority ownership stake. A typical minority stake in an NBA franchise might cost $50 million or more. Even with large salaries, many athletes lack that cash liquidity, especially after taxes, agent fees, and lifestyle costs. Player-ownership remains the purview of the elite superstars, not the average player. This creates a two-tier system that some argue undermines the notion of athlete empowerment.

Perception and Fandom

Some fans view player-ownership as a conflict of interest or as a distraction. If a player-owner makes a bad front-office decision, critics may blame them for both on-field and off-field failures. Others worry that player-owners prioritize their personal brand over team success. So far, the evidence is mixed: Jordan's Hornets were not consistently successful, whereas Johnson's Dodgers have been strong. Ultimately, a team's performance still depends on management, coaching, and player talent, not just who writes the checks.

The Future of Player-Ownership

The trajectory is clear: player-ownership will continue to expand. Several trends suggest the model will become mainstream.

Athlete Activism and Collective Bargaining

As players push for more control over their careers, future collective bargaining agreements are likely to further loosen ownership restrictions. The NFL, which still prohibits active players from owning any stake in any team, faces pressure from players like Tom Brady to retool its rules. Brady, a minority owner of the Las Vegas Raiders (post-retirement), exemplifies the demand. Within a decade, active players may be allowed to hold minority stakes in teams they do not play for, mirroring the NBA model. The Sportico analyzed the shifting landscape and predicts changes in the next CBA.

The Next Generation of Superstars

Young stars like LeBron James, Giannis Antetokounmpo, and Shohei Ohtani have openly expressed interest in ownership. LeBron has already invested in Liverpool FC and is positioning himself to lead an expansion NBA franchise in Las Vegas. As wealth accumulates earlier in careers, future players will have more opportunity to buy into teams while still playing. The rise of athlete-only investment groups, like the one formed by the NFL's Leonard Fournette, shows that collective buying power can make ownership accessible to more than just megastars.

Global Expansion

Player-ownership is not confined to North America. In European football, several players have purchased stakes in clubs. For example, Cristiano Ronaldo invested in his childhood club, Nacional, and David Beckham co-owns Inter Miami CF in MLS. As sports grow globally, the model will adapt to different legal and cultural frameworks. The international trend may also spur cross-league ownership, where athletes own shares in teams across different countries and sports.

Conclusion

The evolution of player-owners from rare outliers to a recognized class of stakeholders marks a permanent change in the structure of professional sports. Enabled by immense wealth, changing league policies, and a desire for legacy, players are increasingly entering the boardroom. While challenges remain—particularly regarding conflicts of interest and access—the benefits of having athlete perspectives in ownership positions are too substantial to ignore. Player-owners bring authenticity, community connection, and a deep understanding of the game that traditional owners often lack. As the next generation of athletes plans its post-playing careers, the model will likely become standard practice rather than remarkable news. The locker room and the boardroom are no longer separate worlds; they are increasingly the same room, with the same people seated at the table.