Why the Boston Celtics' new ownership could be a bad omen for all sports fans
The Boston Celtics, who have won more NBA championships than any other team, were sold for $6.1 billion last week, the most money ever for a professional sports franchise in North America. But outgoing minority owner Steve Pagliuca, whose bid was rejected, suggested the sale could mean bad news for the team's faithful fans because of the private equity money reportedly going into the purchase.
The team is being bought by a group led by Bill Chisholm, managing partner of private equity firm Symphony Technology Group. A person familiar with the matter told CNBC that Sixth Street, a Boston private equity firm, is putting $1 billion toward the purchase. Pagliuca believes his offer was better, and he dropped a warning all sports fans should take note of. 'We made a fully guaranteed and financed offer at a record price, befitting the best sports fans in the world, and with all the capital coming from individuals who are fully committed to winning on and off the court,' Pagliuca wrote on X Thursday.
'We had no debt or private equity money that would potentially hamstring our ability to compete in the future. We have felt it was the best offer for the Celtics.'
Pagliuca is likely disappointed that his offer was spurned for a group of Johnny-come-latelies. Still, his calling out private equity money should raise eyebrows because he himself is a senior adviser at Bain Capital. Pagliuca is telling Celtics fans that there's a conflict between the interests of private equity money and a commitment to winning. If anyone would know about the mindset at private equity firms, he would.
He's a private equity guy who knows what such firms want, and he sees that as enough of a potential challenge for the Celtics to say so publicly — before NBA owners vote to approve the sale.
Sixth Street already owns a piece of the San Antonio Spurs and landed a deal for 10% of Major League Baseball's San Francisco Giants the same week as the Celtics purchase.
A faceless, big-money group owning a sliver of the Celtics may not immediately cause alarm. But we're witnessing a creeping shift in sports ownership that could have big future implications. Most American pro teams are still owned by individuals, families or investor groups that combine the two. For better or worse, owners are often the faces of their franchises. That's why their personalities become associated with their teams' personalities and why fans and journalists hold them personally accountable when their teams stink or there's some scandal.
Everybody knows Jerry Jones owns the Dallas Cowboys and Robert Kraft owns the New England Patriots. As for the Celtics, outgoing owner Wyc Grousbeck sat in front of cameras himself to announce he was suspending then-Celtics coach Ime Udoka for having a personal relationship with a team employee.
When Grousbeck's group bought the Celtics in 2002, the team was struggling. It hadn't won a championship in 16 years. Grousbeck will be remembered in Boston for drafting superstars like Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown and assembling rosters that made it to four NBA Finals and won two championships.
Nothing's to say that private equity owners won't have similar success, but as Pagliuca must know, such firms are best known for cold-blooded efficiency. We've seen them downsize companies however they can: cutting salaries, selling off underperforming units, mass layoffs and holding fire sales on real estate.
Do such firms expect that business model to translate to pro sports, where profits depend on television broadcast contracts, sponsorship deals, revenue sharing and sweetheart arena leases struck with local officials who consider teams civic assets right along with public water infrastructure? Will such investors be as willing to spend up to the NBA's salary cap or to exceed it with 'luxury tax' spending? Might they be even more cutthroat than some individual owners have been about relocating teams if local officials and taxpayers balk at building new stadiums or arenas?
Or will the opposite be true and their billions kick off a spending spree that sends player salaries further into the stratosphere.
Answers to those questions are forthcoming because private equity ownership of U.S. sports teams is likely to expand. In the case of the San Francisco Giants' Sixth Street deal, financial details weren't disclosed, but with the team valued at a reported $4.2 billion, that would mean a $420 million cash infusion to a franchise that plays in a league with no salary cap.
Last year, the NFL, for the first time, approved the sale of as much as 10% of teams' equity to a list of approved private equity investors, with Sixth Street among them. Last month, the New York Giants' owners said they're looking into selling a minority stake, and you can be sure all the approved firms are taking a look.
One way or another, most sports fans will soon know just how many strings are attached to private equity firms' purses, and whether they care more about winning and entertaining their fans or squeezing out a profit.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Greater Minnesota's first Dave's Hot Chicken opens this month
Greater Minnesota's first Dave's Hot Chicken opens this month originally appeared on Bring Me The News. Greater Minnesota's first Dave's Hot Chicken will open this month as the California-born, fast-casual chicken chain expands across the state. The restaurant at 1630 Broadway Avenue South in Rochester will celebrate its grand opening Friday, June 20. A family-run franchisee operation from former NBA star Kris Humphries, his parents William and Debra Humphries, and cousin Alex Humphries brought Dave's Hot Chicken to Minnesota in 2023. A total of 18 locations, with one each in Rochester and St. Cloud, are planned for the state, franchisee Alex Humphries said last year. Currently, Dave's Hot Chicken in open in St. Paul's Highland Park area, Apple Valley, Coon Rapids and Minnetonka. An upcoming location in Minneapolis' North Loop is expected to open in September. That location occupy a roughly 4,000-square-foot space in the the Duffey Lofts building along Washington Avenue This story was originally reported by Bring Me The News on Jun 9, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump cancels $87 million grant for planned low-carbon cement plant in Holyoke
HOLYOKE — President Donald Trump's administration recently canceled an $87 million grant issued to Sublime Systems, whose low-carbon cement manufacturing plant is scheduled to open in Holyoke in 2027. Sublime has technology developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to make cement using electricity, a process designed to cut down the amount of carbon released by a traditionally emission-heavy process. It planned to employ 70 to 90 people with production expected to begin in 2027 or 2028. It already secured and cleared a 16-acre site in Holyoke's industrial flats area. Sublime chose the area, in part, because of Holyoke's hydropower, which is a successor to the 19th century turbines that made Holyoke famous as the 'Paper City.' Sublime is still seeking financing despite the loss of federal money. 'All our meetings with the Sublime team indicate this project is moving forward,' said Aaron Vega, head of planning and economic development for Holyoke. 'We do not yet have site plans submitted for review, but the city has had pre-application meetings with their design team and are working through the issues and opportunities at their location.' U.S. Rep. Richard E. Neal, D-Springfield, said the Trump administration terminated $3.7 billion in grants issued by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Clean Energy. That includes the Holyoke grant. 'The Trump Administration's decision to kill critical clean energy projects is deeply irresponsible and is a betrayal of American innovation, workers, and the fight against climate change,' Neal said in a statement Monday. 'Scrapping funding for projects for innovators like Sublime Systems in Holyoke undercuts years of progress in decarbonizing heavy industry, and it jeopardizes good-paying jobs and economic development in communities that need it most.' The funding came through the Inflation Reduction Act, which was written in the House Ways and Means Committee that Neal chaired at the time. 'I can say unequivocally that this was not the intention of the bill; it was designed to accelerate the clean energy transition through innovation, not stall it,' Neal said. 'This isn't just about climate — it's about global competitiveness and leadership. Calling the move to shortsighted, Neal's statement called on the Trump administration to reinstate the grant. Sublime already had a deal to sell 623,000 tons of cement products to Microsoft over six to nine years. Previously, Neal said he expected the climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act to survive because many of the projects are in Republican-leaning southern states where GOP congress members would fight for them. In January, Joe Hicken, Sublime's vice president of business development and policy, said he would be surprised if the incoming adminstration canceled the 'investments in clean American manufacturing,' because the United States imports millions of tons of cement. Springfield Pride headliner Dawn Richard told 'Diddy' jurors of threats, violence, abuse Breeze Airways adds new flights from Bradley to NC Western New England University names interim president Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk, the Budget, and the Coming Labor Crisis
Other than the president himself, no one has had a greater impact on the first months of the new Trump administration than Elon Musk. Not only was Musks support critical in getting Donald Trump elected, but his empathy-free approach at the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) made headlines that dominated news cycles while helping flood the zone with contentious and newsworthy actions designed to overwhelm an already exhausted public. Even after departing his government role, Muskcontinued - in rather spectacular fashion -exerting outsized influence on American politics. His incendiary opposition to the administrations "big beautiful" budget bill significantly complicates the path for congressional Republicans eager to prove their loyalty to the president. Until Musks spectacular split with the president, support for the worlds richest man broke almost entirely along partisan lines. For Republicans, he was lauded for a willingness to tackle the difficult and thankless task of taking on an entrenched bureaucracy. For Democrats, he was an oligarch looking to use his government role to enrich himself while callously demeaning civil servants. But there was always more nuance to what the worlds richest man was doing in Washington. While Elons DOGE efforts were often ham-handed, his opposition to the Republicans expensive budget bill reinforces the belief that he genuinely wants to help the government become more effective stewards of taxpayer dollars. Musks detractors have suggested his efforts were entirely self-serving, an attempt to curry favor with Trump to benefit all the companies in his orbit. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, for instance, recently released a report outlining as many as 130 instances where Musk "potentially" used his government role and proximity to Trump to enrich himself. But there was less to this critique than meets the eye. A close reading of Warrens report reveals that most of the items listed are related to things that might benefit Musk and his companies in the future. They were speculative benefits, in other words. Moreover, Musk swiftly eroded the goodwill he had accumulated with the president, likely eliminating those speculative benefits while simultaneously reinforcing the view that his approach to DOGE was principled, regardless of its effectiveness. In raw dollar terms, no one has sacrificed more financially to serve in the U.S. government. From the time of Trumps inauguration to April 22, the date Elon Musk announced in a Tesla analyst call that he would be returning to the automaker, Tesla stock fell by more than 45%. In the process, it erased more than $80 billion from Musks net worth - an amount that, by some analysts estimates, exceeds the net savings from the DOGE efforts. Yes, a few of Musks other businesses may have benefited from his government service, but the magnitude of any such gains is far less than the loss he suffered on Tesla stock. While more than half of those paper losses have been recovered since Musk signaled a return to his company, its not clear Teslas fortunes in the auto business will ever rebound. Teslas impact on Musks net worth is, however, a less relevant issue than what the company is signaling about the direction of American life. Despite single-handedly transforming the automobile industry, Teslas dominance in the electric vehicle space is now gone. So, why does the company still command a trillion-dollar valuation in the equity markets? A simple analysis of its stock suggests its value is not about its car business. That realization is a window into the future. As of the end of May, Teslas market capitalization exceeded $1.1 trillion - more than the value of the next nine auto companies combined. This is despite the fact that Tesla sells fewer cars than all but three of those companies. With a brand in free fall, declining sales and profitability, and rising competition from Chinese manufacturer BYD, it would be hard to argue that Teslas auto business should trade at a premium to other manufacturers. Assuming Teslas auto business is worth roughly the same amount as Mercedes Benz, General Motors, or BMW (all companies with unit sales at least 30% greater than Teslas and lacking Teslas significant brand issues), the selling of cars would account for a paltry 5% of Teslas implied value. Solar City, on the other hand, could be worth as much as twice its rival First Solar, given its relative size. Assuming thats correct, another $30 billion or 3% of Teslas valuation is explained by the worth of Teslas solar power and energy storage division. Even adding in the $24 billion of net cash Tesla has on its balance sheet, we have a company worth between $100 and $110 billion - one-tenth of what the market says Tesla is worth. So, why has the market rewarded Tesla with a valuation thats roughly 10 times the sum of its operating businesses? What do investors see in Tesla that they dont see in other similar companies? The answer would seem to be Musks investment in future technologies, most notably humanoid robots (Musk says hes going to sell a million devices at $30,000 a piece by 2030 and is positing a future where there is one humanoid robot for every person on the planet) - not to mention self-driving vehicles. In short, 90% of Teslas valuation is about one thing - eliminating jobs currently held by Americans. This isnt a future entirely inspired by Musks vision alone. Dozens of major companies are charting a course in this direction. In some ways, its a natural evolution of a number of technological advances in material science, artificial intelligence, energy storage and management, and sensors and perception. So, while Musk has been a lightning rod for all sorts of criticism and approbation, our leaders would be wise to examine what his company is telling us about the future - and legislate appropriately. From a policy standpoint, the questions that need to be answered are obvious. How will Americans feed themselves and their families when the job they depend upon is being done by a machine? How will the job destruction from these technological advances affect tax receipts, which are overly dependent on income taxes? How will Americans find fulfillment in life without work? How can we best share the benefits of this fourth industrial revolution to ensure they arent overly concentrated in a few hands? Policymakers failed to realize the impact of early automation and offshoring on average Americans, leading to significant income and wealth concentration. They cant make the same mistake again. Our leaders ushered in an era of globalization, during which imports as a percentage of GDP increased by three times from 1970 to the present. We now have $4 trillion of imports flooding our shelves, giving Americans access to low-cost electronics, clothing, and other consumer goods. While average Americans benefited from these price reductions, as a country, we largely overlooked those Americans who lost their jobs as a result of these import gains. In fact, weve never spent more than a billion dollars annually on trade adjustment assistance, 4,000 times less than the imports we have coming on shore every year. Compounding the mistakes of globalization by neglecting the implications of whats about to come will lead to an even more alienated and divided electorate. America wont survive the outcome of that policy failure. Greg Orman is a Kansas entrepreneur, author of 'A Declaration of Independents,' and a former independent candidate for governor and senator of his state. His website is
