In a significant move that underscores the traditional ownership values of the Cincinnati Bengals, the team was the lone dissenter in an NFL-wide vote to allow private equity firms to buy passive minority stakes in franchises. This decision, finalized in early September 2024, has sparked conversation about the direction of NFL ownership structures and the unique position that the Bengals’ ownership group has taken.
The Context: NFL’s Move Toward Private Equity
NFL owners voted 31-1 in favor of a rule that permits private equity firms to purchase minority shares in teams. This move represents a major shift in the league’s ownership landscape, as it opens the door to new investment sources for teams that may need capital or are looking for ways to diversify their ownership groups. Historically, NFL ownership has been limited to individuals or families, with strict rules about corporate and outside ownership.
This change comes at a time when the valuations of NFL teams have reached record levels, making it increasingly difficult for individuals to buy into franchises without significant financial backing. Allowing private equity firms to hold minority stakes is seen as a way to inject more capital into the league while providing liquidity to current owners.
Why the Bengals Said No
The Cincinnati Bengals, owned by the Brown family since the franchise’s inception, have long been known for their traditional approach to team ownership. The family’s patriarch, Paul Brown, founded the team in 1967, and the Browns have maintained controlling ownership ever since.
The Bengals’ vote against the private equity rule aligns with their historical stance on ownership and operations. The team, under the leadership of Mike Brown (Paul Brown’s son), has resisted external influence and upheld the notion of family ownership as a core value of the franchise. For the Brown family, the idea of private equity ownership may be seen as inconsistent with the intimate, personal stewardship they believe is necessary for managing an NFL team.
Mike Brown, the team’s principal owner, has also expressed concerns in the past about maintaining control and avoiding the commercialization of NFL franchises. The Bengals’ vote signals their commitment to keeping ownership in the hands of individuals or families rather than opening it to corporate entities, which could prioritize profits over the long-term stewardship of the team.
The Implications for the NFL
While the Bengals stood alone in their opposition, the rest of the league’s owners have embraced the idea of private equity ownership as a way to bring in fresh capital and facilitate smoother transitions of minority stakes in teams. For teams with aging owners or those facing financial difficulties, private equity can offer a way to maintain stability without fully relinquishing control of the franchise.
However, the move is not without controversy. Critics argue that allowing private equity firms into NFL ownership could commercialize the league in ways that might prioritize short-term profits over the integrity of the game. Others fear that private equity involvement could lead to instability, as these firms often seek higher returns on their investments and may look for quick exits rather than long-term involvement.
The Bengals’ opposition highlights a broader debate about the future of professional sports ownership. As team valuations continue to rise and the cost of running a franchise increases, more teams may look for creative financing options, including private equity. The Bengals’ decision to reject this path, however, reflects a desire to preserve what they see as the values of traditional sports ownership—focused on stability, legacy, and long-term commitment to the community.
What’s Next for the Bengals?
For the Cincinnati Bengals, the vote is unlikely to have a major impact on their operations in the near term. The team has remained one of the more conservative franchises in terms of spending and management, and this vote is consistent with their philosophy. The Brown family has shown no signs of relinquishing control of the team, and there is every indication that they plan to keep the franchise within the family for years to come.
However, the landscape of NFL ownership is changing, and the Bengals’ position could leave them as an outlier in a league that is increasingly embracing new forms of ownership. Whether the team will continue to resist these changes or eventually adapt remains to be seen, but for now, the Bengals are making a clear statement about their commitment to traditional values.
The Cincinnati Bengals’ vote against the NFL’s new private equity ownership rule sets them apart from the rest of the league, underscoring their commitment to family ownership and long-term stability. While the rest of the NFL may be moving toward more flexible ownership models, the Bengals remain focused on preserving their legacy and maintaining control within the Brown family.
This decision reflects a broader conversation about the future of NFL ownership, and it will be interesting to see how other teams and the league at large navigate this new era. For now, the Bengals stand alone in their opposition, signaling a unique approach to team management and ownership in one of the country’s most commercially driven sports leagues
