The proposed legislation, introduced by Rep. Greg Casar and Sen. Bernie Sanders, seeks to restore balance in contractual negotiations regarding the relocation of professional sports teams. This initiative comes in response to the increasing demands of team owners, who often seek new tax breaks and subsidies to maintain or relocate their franchises, at the expense of taxpayers.

The bill, known as the 'Home Team Act', primarily aims to end sports leagues' prohibitions on public ownership by community members or local governments. Furthermore, it would facilitate the transfer of a franchise to a local entity, such as a city, town, community members, a nonprofit, a public-private partnership, or a public-spirited individual.

The legislation would require any team to give one year's notice of its intention to move across state lines or into a new metropolitan statistical area. This would provide the local community with time to find a buyer, whether an individual, entity, or group, to purchase the team at its 'fair market value'. If no acceptable offer is presented, the owner could proceed with the move. However, if local investors make a bid deemed fair by independent appraisers, they would have the opportunity to buy the club.

In addition, the bill could complicate the plans of teams like the Chicago Bears, which were seeking to relocate to Indiana and obtain additional public funds. Rep. Casar emphasized that the bill seeks to preserve the emotional bonds between teams and their fans, preventing the loss of jobs and economic activity that relocation entails.

The initiative would allow communities to gain a financial stake in a sports team, rather than allocating more funds to the owners. This would strengthen the position of state and municipal governments in negotiating deals and resisting relocation threats that force public funds to be used for stadium construction.

Owners who fail to comply with regulations could face fines of $30,000 per day. Senator Sanders highlighted that communities suffer a 'double tragedy' when teams move, losing jobs, economic activity, and the emotional bonds with fans.

The legislative proposal cites the model of the Green Bay Packers, a publicly owned, non-profit corporation, as an example. In this model, no individual can own more than 4% of the team's shares. A board of directors and an executive committee oversee team operations.

Associate Professor Geoffrey Propheter suggests that cities could benefit from a public ownership framework similar to that used by the Columbus Clippers, a Triple-A affiliate of the MLB's Cleveland Guardians. Franklin County, Ohio, owns the team and its stadium, and operates it much like a public utility. Propheter warns, however, that teams are 'stupidly expensive', and owners may demand a higher price if prevented from moving, which would increase costs for taxpayers.

The bill could complicate stadium deals and deter team owners from threatening to move. The proposed law could affect teams like the Kansas City Chiefs, whose deal includes nearly $2 billion in public subsidies, and the Washington Commanders, who received a $1 billion subsidy. Sanders and Casar hope that the independent valuation mechanism will limit bidding for franchises and make owners think twice before threatening to move.

Casar is not concerned about opposition from sports leagues. According to him, the law has the support of millions of people, outnumbering the few owners who might oppose it.