U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is behind a bill that would prevent the Padres from leaving in the future — and would have kept the Chargers in San Diego. Some say the government has no place in dictating where private businesses operate.
Sanders, I-Vermont, and U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, recently introduced the Home Team Act, which would require team ownership to provide one year of notice before moving a team to a new location if the team would move across state lines or to a new metropolitan area.
During that year prior to the proposed relocation, the franchise in question would be available for other prospective owners to purchase “at a fair and reasonable price.”
San Diego is especially sensitive about teams leaving after the Chargers went to Los Angeles in 2017. Recently, the Padres have entertained several offers to sell, igniting fears someone may take the baseball club somewhere else.
The legislation has faced criticism as government control over business likely faces pushback from sports leagues and potential constitutional arguments over property rights.
Question: Should Congress pass the Home Team Act?
Economists
David Ely, San Diego State University
NO: The goals of retaining home teams and containing the excessive use of public funds to attract a sports franchise are commendable. However, the bill would permit a local government entity or a public-private partnership that includes a local government entity to purchase the franchise. During the one year of notice, local governments will feel pressure to spend public funds to purchase the franchise or offer incentives to persuade a local entity to do so.
Ray Major, economist
NO: There are stupid ideas and then there is this. The federal government has absolutely no place in telling a sports team, or any other business for that matter where they can and cannot locate. Local government should compete to keep sports teams local and not be mandated by the federal government. Talk about government overreach. How about the federal government concentrate on reducing the federal deficit, eliminating fraud, investing in infrastructure, reducing health care costs, providing national and social security.
Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy
YES: There is a classic hold-up problem once a team is established, which the Home Team Act helps address. Attracting a franchise requires large upfront public investment. San Diego, for example, spent about $300 million on Petco Park. Afterward, the city’s bargaining position weakens, and it risks losing its investment if it resists new demands. The act would rebalance negotiations, giving cities more leverage and encouraging more durable partnerships.
Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research
NO: Professional sports are optional private entertainment businesses, not civic institutions, with a somewhat tenuous association where they operate. Owners and players do not necessarily reside in the community. Such operations evolve as owner investors seek a profitable return, which the government has no expertise to risk or manage. While professional sports have some economic consequences for a community, as Petco Park demonstrated, helping drive downtown redevelopment, the value is limited to justify using government taxpayer funds to subsidize such endeavors.
James Hamilton, UC San Diego
YES: I’m usually concerned when the government tries to take away people’s control over the things they own. But the franchise owners have monopoly power that they use to extort concessions from the taxpayers of the host cities by constantly threatening to leave. The fans also have a direct stake in the outcome. Making that shakedown a little harder for the owners would help protect fans, taxpayers and the long-run health of professional sports.
Norm Miller, University of San Diego
NO: I don’t believe we need or want government interference, such as that proposed by Bernie. We simply need an enlightened local government that privately negotiates strong incentives or penalties in any contracts with sports teams where local subsidies or facilities are provided. We should not expect loyalty from people like (Chargers owner) Dean Spanos, unless we tie local support to requirements that home teams stay home. No new laws are needed.
Executives
Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health
NO: The last time I looked, professional sports teams are private businesses with owners who should have the ability to run their business themselves without congressional interference if they comply with league rules and business laws in the state in which they operate. I think Congress has many more important issues to deal with right now than micromanaging professional sports.
Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere
NO: Government shouldn’t interfere in private business decisions unless it’s necessary for public safety, fair competition or national security. If local or state policies, regulations or negotiations don’t serve a team’s best interest, it has the right to relocate to a city or state that offers better economic opportunities. Companies like Tesla and Chevron moved their headquarters for such reasons. Sports teams shouldn’t be any different. Government interference in where businesses operate undermines free markets and sets a bad precedent.
Phil Blair, Manpower
NO: With all the problems and challenges now facing Congress, this should be the least of its worries. Owning a sports team is no different than owning any other company in a community. They should be driven by the WARN Act, like any other business that has major layoffs. If communities help fund stadiums, they need to protect themselves with terms of the contract, not a federal law.
Gary London, London Moeder Advisors
NO: I think that team owners should be left on their own to make stupid decisions. The federal government should not be involved in interfering with local decision-making. The Chargers’ exit was owned to dishonesty and ineptitude. A new Padres ownership is extremely unlikely to be compelled to move, given their huge fan base and support. And the city has invested much in their retention at Petco. I see this as a non-issue.
Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates
NO: With so many critical decisions facing Congress, this bill adds another layer of federal interference in what should remain private business decisions. I didn’t want to see the Chargers leave San Diego, and I stopped rooting for them after they did. Yes, a one‑year notice rule might offer transparency and give cities time to react, but that doesn’t make it necessary. Franchise movement is ultimately a market decision, and Congress shouldn’t micromanage it.
Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth
NO: While I philosophically disagree, the issue is complicated and this bill forces interesting legal standoffs surrounding abuse of public funds, private contracts conflicting with legislation, and it reopens broader ownership options. Even if passed, it would immediately face court challenges by leagues and owners but could ultimately benefit cities, fans and fair play. After experiencing the Chargers and potential move for the Padres, we understand the stakes. This bill is unlikely to prevail, but it sparks a conversation.
Not participating this week:
Alan Gin, University of San Diego
Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020