Atlanta Braves Should Be Blueprint for Sports Team Ownership

If Congress has any interest in making professional sports more equitable, accountable, and less reliant on taxpayer subsidies, it should consider not penalizing the Atlanta Braves—the only MLB team that’s actually accountable to the public.

A change to tax code Section 162(m) that introduces a cap on top earner salary deductions for public corporations will soon go into effect. While it doesn’t specifically target sports franchises, this cap threatens to punish the MLB’s only publicly traded team. Tax policy should instead encourage transparent and public ownership of sports franchises.

This looming change, which is set to start in 2027, would hit the Braves with a projected $19 million annual tax hike—about twice the estimated cost of signing Ronald Acuña Jr. for the 2027 season. Meanwhile, private teams owned by billionaires and hedge funds would continue deducting massive player salaries without consequence.

The new rule is isn’t just a quirk of policy drafting—it’s a case study in how well-intentioned tax reforms can end up punishing transparency and subsidizing opacity when they aren’t carefully tailored. To foster better behavior in sports ownership—from curtailing municipal stadium shakedowns to encouraging financial accountability—Congress should flip the incentives.

Ronald Acuña Jr. of the Atlanta Braves at bat against the Chicago Cubs at Wrigley Field.

Photographer: Michael Reaves/Getty Images

Publicly traded companies answer to shareholders and quarterly earnings calls, as well as to regulators. Consequently, the Braves must file audited financials with the Securities and Exchange Commission like any other similarly situated corporation. These filings detail revenue, expenses, payroll, and any long-term obligations.

Every big decision, from signing a star player to breaking ground on a new stadium, is subject to public scrutiny. In addition to encouraging good corporate governance for professional sports teams, the filing requirements create guardrails against the use of public funding for sports venues.

Public ownership isn’t perfect, but it’s significantly more democratic and subject to oversight than the status quo. When a public team proposes a stadium plan, investors analyze the numbers, ask questions, and push back on deals that don’t pass muster.

There’s another upside to public ownership: Publicly traded teams can’t pack up and move to Las Vegas on a single billionaire’s whim. A private owner can simply stroll into city hall with a glossy rendering and an ultimatum—pay up or we move. If Congress wants more accountability in how sports teams operate, it should ask why the private ones are getting a free ride.

When a stadium starts getting old, has an opossum infestation, or sees waning fan attendance, a private owner can threaten to relocate to a city with more generous taxpayers. This threat only works because a single owner can unilaterally make the call to walk. From Oakland to St. Louis, billionaire ownership groups have used this ploy to extract greater concessions out of municipalities for years.

Public companies, on the other hand, are legally obligated to act in the best long-term interest of the broader enterprise. That doesn’t make relocation impossible, but it does make it harder, slower, and more transparent. A cash-flush franchise can’t as easily cry insolvency and claim there’s no choice but to move unless taxpayers fund new facilities.

Publicly traded teams such as the Braves also have access to something most franchises don’t: capital markets. That means they can raise money to fund a new stadium or sign a high-profile free agent by issuing stock or corporate bonds or by borrowing against projected media rights and ticket revenue. They are structured in a way that allows them to more easily finance their own growth.

More teams should operate this way. But instead, Congress is preparing to slap the Braves with a tax penalty equivalent to a solid middle-infielder’s salary. That would do little to quell potential calls to take the Braves private or motivate other teams to go public.

Congress should consider an entertainment carveout that incentivizes public ownership in professional sports given the frequent use of taxpayer money to fund stadiums. A better calibrated policy could offer a deduction or targeted credit for publicly traded teams that operate under the increased scrutiny of the markets and the SEC.

This would reward a model that relies on investors, rather than taxpayers, to fund infrastructure—engaging in some tax spending today to avoid significant tax revenue expenditures tomorrow.

Ultimately, this isn’t about providing the Braves or any other publicly traded team with preferential tax treatment. It’s about designing a tax code that aligns best with the public interest. We should want more teams subject to shareholder oversight, more deals vetted through public filings, and fewer billionaires shaking down local governments for tax handouts.

Letting the new tax rule stand as written would send a clear message to major sports franchises: Transparency is taxable, and secrecy is subsidized. That isn’t just bad tax policy—it’s bad for baseball.

Andrew Leahey is a tax and technology attorney, principal at Hunter Creek Consulting, and practice professor at Drexel Kline School of Law. Follow him on Mastodon at @andrew@esq.social

Read More Technically Speaking