Joshua Kushner and former Disney CEO Bob Iger's ownership group recently agreed to acquire a control stake in the Los Angeles Lakers, valuing the franchise at a record-breaking $12.5 billion (pending regulatory approvals). The deal got me thinking about what this new benchmark could mean for valuations across the rest of the league.

For illiquid, homogeneous assets like shares in NBA teams, you would expect recent transactions to set the new valuation benchmark that prospective and existing investors reference… with published deal values becoming negotiating anchors for new investors (and new deals), and current owners using them to mark their holdings to market.

But does one transaction really reprice the entire league? I examined three record deals to explore the question.

𝐀 𝐟𝐞𝐰 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐝:

1. A record transaction involving one of the NBA’s five most valuable teams tends to have a stronger ripple effect on valuations across the league.

2. A record transaction involving a team outside the top five tends to have a significant effect primarily within that team’s peer group…with the teams in the peer group most likely to have a more significant valuation markup.
   

With only three historical data points, these findings are not statistically significant. They do, however, offer useful directional context.

There is also an important confounding factor. The Clippers’ 2014 sale coincided with the announcement of a massive national media-rights agreement. The subsequent rise in NBA franchise valuations therefore cannot be attributed solely to the Clippers transaction.

The Lakers’ $12.5 billion deal similarly comes as the league enters the second year of its new $77 billion media-rights agreement. If history is any guide, the combination could set the stage for a major league-wide repricing in 2027.

I would love to read any perspectives you have in the comments.

The Proposal

The official Proposal came on the heels of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which is expected to be the highest-grossing tournament in FIFA World Cup history. According to a statement made by the FIFA President, Gianni Infantino, the Proposal is designed to “unleash the commercial potential and opportunity that FIFA has”.

The Proposal has the following key elements:

1. The creation of a for-profit entity called FIFA Forward Enterprise (“FFE”), a subsidiary of FIFA.

2. FFE would own commercial rights across FIFA’s tournament portfolio: broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality and licensing.

3. FFE would manage tournament-delivery operations of FIFA competitions including the men’s, women’s and youth World Cups.

4. FFE is raising up to US$4.2 billion from private investors at an implied valuation of US$20 billion, offering up to a c.21% minority stake.

5. Member Associations (MAs), with this funding, receive up to $20 million over a 3-4 year cycle, up from $8-10 million, to subsidize accepted operational and capital expenses.

6. FIFA would retain control of FFE and exclusive authority over football governance, competitions, the international match calendar and all regulatory and sporting decisions.

7. FFE will launch only if a majority of the MAs decide to support it. FIFA has 211 MAs.

8. MAs have until 19 September 2026 to indicate whether they support and wish to participate in the Proposal.

Point #4 is what has got key football confederations mad. The biggest being UEFA.

The Boycott

“UEFA and its 55 member associations stand as one”. This was the first statement in UEFA’s official response to FIFA’s proposal. UEFA alludes to the fact that the Proposal was put together and developed to the point of approval without the input of the football confederations, or at least UEFA. This is one key point that makes them mad. The union uses words like “irresponsible” and “indefensible” to qualify their disapproval.

The other key point UEFA had, and probably the more important point, is that with investors come expectations of returns, expectations that in most cases will come above the interests of national associations, leagues, clubs, players and supporters. Once external investors are involved, UEFA argues that “football changes forever”.

UEFA ends their response with a strong statement: “…no UEFA national teams will participate in any FIFA competition for so long as these proposals remain alive, unless this Proposal has been abandoned in its entirety and binding assurances have been given that FIFA will never again open its governance or competitions to private ownership.” This stand is very clear to me.

Concacaf has also rejected the Proposal, citing similar reasons, including a lack of due process and doubt that private equity funding is necessary following FIFA’s most profitable World Cup.

Table: # of FIFA MAs by Region/Confederation.

Source: https://inside.fifa.com/en/about-fifa/associations

What does this mean going forward? The Proposal requires a majority approval. Each MA has one vote. Therefore, FIFA requires 106 of its 211 MAs (50.24%) to approve the Proposal before it can be passed. With UEFA and Concacaf out, less than 8% of the votes are needed for this Proposal to fail.

Should other MAs follow UEFA’s path or not?

The Why

From the surface, it is hard to see why FIFA designed the Proposal.

Could it be because they are facing financial difficulties? To answer this question, I am going to look into FIFA’s main revenue source. The men’s FIFA World Cup.

FIFA commits money to tournaments, member-association distributions and development programs before much of the World Cup revenue is recognized or collected. So, it is best to run the analysis based on the FIFA reporting cycle.

Table: Revenue and direct FIFA expenditure in the last 5 World Cups.

Figures in US$

Sources: FIFA 2019–2022 revenue and FIFA tournament expenditure

The 2026 FIFA World Cup is estimated to have generated roughly US$12 billion in revenue, almost double that from Qatar 2022. Also, assuming a surplus margin of between 54% and 71%, we can estimate a tournament surplus of US$6.5-8.5 billion, again double that of Qatar 2022 on the high end.

One could argue that FIFA’s direct expense is only one line item, and other expense line items could be a liquidity drag for FIFA. Looking into this, I came to realize that the donations made to MAs are actually the largest expense line item for FIFA. Take the 2019 to 2022 FIFA cycle for example, this expense represented c. 39% of total expenses.

Table: FIFA 2019 -2022 expense categorization.

Figures in US$

Source: https://publications.fifa.com/en/annual-report-2022/finances/2019-2022-cycle-in-review/2019-2022-budget-comparison/

To assess the impact on liquidity, I looked at FIFA’s net working capital (NWC). Since the World Cup takes place at the end of FIFA’s four-year reporting cycle, you might expect some liquidity pressure during the three preceding years. The numbers, however, suggest otherwise. Take the 2023–2026 cycle. FIFA’s NWC was as high as US$3.1 billion in 2024 and remained positive at US$543 million in 2025. The decline in 2025 largely reflects substantial advance payments recorded as deferred revenue ahead of the 2026 World Cup. As that revenue is recognized in 2026, FIFA’s reported NWC should improve considerably, subject to the timing of the related tournament expenditure. So, there is clearly no liquidity issue, at least one that requires private equity to address.

Or could it just be that this is the next area of focus for private equity (PE), especially US private equity? Especially how, over the last seven (7) years, private equity has slowly been allowed to acquire minority and non-controlling stakes in individual franchises within the five (5) major US sport leagues.

Table: The years in which PE investors were granted ownership in the top US sport leagues.

Can we look at FIFA the same way? With FIFA as the league, and the men’s FIFA World Cup as the franchise? If we can, I can understand the interest. The men’s FIFA World Cup is profitable and has revenues higher than the highest-revenue team in each major US league, even when its revenue is divided by four to account for the fact that the revenue from the other teams are annual.

Table: Qatar World Cup Revenue vs. the Highest-Revenue Team in Each Major US League

Sources: Dallas Cowboys, Golden State Warriors, MLB teams, Toronto Maple Leafs and Inter Miami.

I am sure this is not the first time private investors have tried to get a stake in FIFA tournaments, at least informally. It could just be that FIFA is beginning to crack under the pressure.

I am clearly missing something here; I am open to reading your thoughts.

Subscribe now

If you’re anything like me and live in North America, it probably feels like padel appeared out of nowhere. One day hardly anyone was talking about it, and the next it seemed to be everywhere. Today, private equity firms, real estate developers, equipment manufacturers and sports stars are all racing to claim a piece of the opportunity. But as we all know, trends don’t become global phenomena overnight.

So I decided to peek behind the curtain and understand how padel went from a niche pastime to one of the fastest-growing sports in the world.

This is a love story…kind of

If tennis and squash met at a bar, fell in love, got married, and had a child, that child would probably be called padel.

The sport was invented in Mexico in 1969 by Enrique Corcuera, who wanted to capture the essence of tennis in a smaller, enclosed space. But inventing a sport and making it popular are two very different things. That changed when Prince Alfonso of Hohenlohe, who we would probably call a super-connector today, visited his friend Enrique in Mexico and fell in love with the game. When he returned to Spain in 1974, he built what is widely considered the first official padel court at the renowned Marbella Club. This is when the dominoes began to fall.

The Marbella Club attracted celebrities, business leaders and royalty from around the world. Many tried padel during their stay, became hooked, and returned home as unofficial ambassadors for the sport. Court by court and country by country, padel’s popularity spread.

Then came the tipping point: the COVID-19 pandemic. While many indoor sports were forced to shut down, padel’s outdoor format allowed people to stay active while complying with public health restrictions. Clubs were able to reopen sooner than many gyms, and millions of people looking for a safe, social way to exercise discovered the game. What had been a steadily growing sport suddenly became a global phenomenon.

Since the pandemic, people have been craving connection

The COVID-19 pandemic changed the way many of us think about human connection. Zoom happy hours and virtual game nights were a clever substitute, but they never quite matched the experience of being in the same room as friends and family.

As the world reopened, people didn’t just want to get back to normal. They wanted to reconnect. And few things bring people together quite like sport. The challenge is that many sports come with a steep learning curve. If you didn’t grow up playing tennis, or squash, or basketball, picking them up as an adult can feel intimidating. Padel is different. The rules are simple, rallies last longer, and beginners can enjoy themselves from their very first game. It’s competitive enough to keep experienced players engaged, but accessible enough that almost anyone can step onto a court and have fun.

That combination has proven incredibly powerful. Since 2020, the number of padel players worldwide has increased nearly fourfold by 2025, according to Playtomic’s 2026 Global Padel Report.

Source: Playtomic 2026 Global Padel Report

Padel is played on an enclosed court surrounded by glass and mesh walls, with the walls remaining in play after the ball bounces. The objective is to hit the ball in a way that prevents your opponents from making a legal return. Because it’s almost always played in doubles, every match is also a social experience.

Photo credit: Swiss Padel

What makes it different from pickleball?

I will be honest, this was the biggest question I had. After digging into it, I realized there isn’t a single definitive answer. For most recreational players, the choice is surprisingly practical. People tend to play whichever sport is easiest to access, whichever their friends are playing, and whichever has courts nearby.

Geography also plays a big role. Across much of Europe, padel courts are everywhere, making padel the natural choice. In North America, it’s the opposite. Pickleball has a much larger footprint, so it is often the more accessible option.

Of course, the sports are different in meaningful ways. Padel is played on an enclosed court where the walls are part of the game, creating longer rallies and a more tactical style of play. Pickleball, meanwhile, is played on an open court with its own unique rules and strategy. The table below highlights some of the key differences between the two sports.

Growth mainly in Europe

I introduced the comparison with pickleball because I think the growth stories of the two sports are closely connected. Padel is growing rapidly, but most of that growth is happening outside North America. One reason is the unit economics. Many clubs can convert an existing tennis court into several pickleball courts with relatively little investment. Padel, on the other hand, requires purpose-built courts with glass walls and steel mesh, making the upfront capital investment much higher. The other reason is that pickleball originated in North America, the United States specifically, and it is also having its moment. The result is that pickleball has spread much faster across North America, while padel has established a much stronger foothold in Europe and Latin America.

It’s also worth remembering that not every country is at the same stage of padel’s growth journey. Spain and Argentina are the most mature markets. Courts are already widespread, so the focus has shifted from simply building new facilities to increasing utilization, improving the player experience, and capturing a greater share of consumer spending. Other countries are still in the infrastructure phase. France is perhaps the best example. According to Playtomic, France accounted for the largest share of new padel courts built in 2025, a strong signal that demand is outpacing supply. It also helps that the country has thousands of ageing tennis facilities that can be redeveloped into padel clubs, making the economics of expansion particularly attractive. North America sits much earlier on the adoption curve. Court availability remains limited, and awareness is still developing. But that could change. As racket sports continue to gain popularity, the success of pickleball may end up creating a broader audience for padel, lowering the barriers to adoption and paving the way for its next phase of growth.

Monetization remains key

Padel’s future will depend on converting enthusiasm into habit. It will require affordable access, active communities, digital coordination and operators capable of matching supply with real local demand. If the industry can broaden participation without sacrificing club economics, padel can develop from a fast-growing leisure trend into a durable global sport. I will be watching closely.