Competing Bids for the Connecticut Sun: Boston vs. Hartford
Let’s start with this: while Boston is about a two-hour drive from Uncasville, Connecticut, the home of the Connecticut Sun, the WNBA is treating it like it’s on a different planet.
The Connecticut Sun is on the market, drawing significant attention due to its high-profile bidders and the implications of relocation. Owned by the Mohegan Tribe since the team's inception, the Sun currently faces two distinct and competitive $325 million bids. One offer is from a Boston-based group led by Celtics minority owner Steve Pagliuca, proposing relocating the team to TD Garden in 2027. The other bid comes from a Connecticut group aiming to keep the team within state borders by relocating to Hartford’s newly renovated PeoplesBank Arena (formerly known as the XL Center).
Both offers present strong financial propositions, marking substantial gains for the Sun, the Mohegan Tribe, and other WNBA stakeholders. By any reasonable measure, the bids represent a market-driven outcome reflecting the team's genuine valuation.
The WNBA’s Controversial Involvement in the Sale
The WNBA's response has been puzzling and somewhat concerning. The league's Board of Governors has emphasized that relocation decisions rest solely in its hands, publicly asserting that Boston cannot simply “jump the expansion queue.”
Key aspects of the league’s actions include:
- Assertion of control: The WNBA has stated that all relocation decisions remain under its exclusive authority.
- Public stance on Boston: The league reiterated that Boston cannot bypass the formal expansion process.
- Internal counteroffer: The WNBA introduced its own $250 million bid—significantly lower than the private $325 million offers—indicating a preference to move the team to Houston.
The gap between the league’s offer and the private bids isn't just about money. It's about transparency, governance, and the underlying principles of how franchise sales and relocations should be handled.
Legal Ramifications: Antitrust and Oversight Concerns
- Connecticut officials, understandably alarmed, have responded strongly.
- U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, alongside Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, have formally demanded documentation from the WNBA.
- Their argument is clear and forceful: interfering in a legitimate private sale and potentially using league bylaws as a backdoor to manipulate outcomes might well trigger serious antitrust scrutiny.
The message is straightforward—allow the current owner to freely negotiate a fair, market-driven price without undue influence or intervention from the league.
Market Valuation and Financial Transparency
- The fundamental financial realities underscore how unusual the league’s stance is.
- With two independent bids both at $325 million, the WNBA’s internally proposed $250 million offer seems curiously low.
If the league's goal is truly to relocate the franchise to a preferred market, transparency and fairness dictate it must either match the existing private market price or clearly and openly communicate its rationale for any discrepancy.
Geographical Considerations and Misrepresentation
The WNBA’s stance that relocating from Uncasville to Boston constitutes an "expansion" defies basic geographic logic. The two-hour drive separating the locations hardly qualifies as pioneering new territory. It's, quite simply, a short bus ride.
This raises a broader point about clarity in communication and representation—fundamental issues in franchise contracts and negotiations that must be handled with precision and honesty.
Governance Lessons for Business and Franchise Transactions
At the core of this dispute lie fundamental principles relevant to all franchise transactions:
- Clear governance structures that ensure transparency and consistency.
- Transparent decision-making processes that safeguard market-driven outcomes.
- Respect for established market valuations to prevent undervaluation or manipulation.
Franchise owners always retain the right to sell their property, and leagues rightly hold the power to approve or reject relocations. However, when multiple private offers align at record-setting valuations, a lower internal bid accompanied by subtle but pointed pressure towards a specific market creates a situation ripe for legal scrutiny and reputational damage.
How Business Attorneys Safeguard Fair and Transparent Franchise Sales
Business attorneys play an essential role in franchise transactions precisely to prevent such conflicts. They ensure that:
- Transactions reflect fair market value and transparent negotiation processes.
- Contracts and franchise agreements clearly define rights, responsibilities, and the extent of league involvement.
- Owners are protected from unexpected or unwarranted interference.
Market Strength and Public Interest in Boston
Boston isn't an abstract concept as a market—it has already demonstrated its viability. On July 15th, when the Sun played a “home” game at TD Garden, the event sold out, drawing 19,156 fans. It became one of the highest-attended events in the Sun's history and among the WNBA’s top attendance figures of the season. Such clear evidence of market viability further deepens the mystery surrounding the league's resistance.
Transparency, Fairness, and the Path Forward
Ultimately, the heart of the issue isn't money—it's clarity, fairness, and responsible governance. If the WNBA intends to influence where the franchise goes, it should openly communicate and transparently justify its intentions, or simply match the highest market bid.
Anything short of that risks shifting public discourse from exciting news of potential franchise relocation and growth to complicated, drawn-out legal proceedings. Clear governance, responsible business practices, and market-driven decision-making aren't just best practices—they’re essential to maintaining the league’s credibility and securing its future.
Frequently Asked Questions
- League bylaws and franchise agreements commonly require advance approval from the league’s governing body for relocations. These provisions define criteria, voting thresholds, and timelines. Owners should review consent clauses, conditions precedent, and any penalties for unauthorized moves before proceeding.
- Potentially. If a league action restrains trade or depresses competitive bidding without a pro-competitive justification, it may invite antitrust scrutiny. Courts often consider market power, purpose, and effects; documentation of neutral, transparent criteria helps mitigate risk.
- Fair market value is typically demonstrated through independent bids, comparable transactions, financial performance, and third-party valuations. Multiple arms-length offers at similar prices are strong indicators, but parties should memorialize assumptions and methodologies in diligence files.
- Depending on the facts and contracts, remedies may include internal appeals, negotiation under the bylaws, injunctive relief, or damages claims. Counsel can assess whether administrative procedures must be exhausted before seeking court intervention.
- Priorities include reviewing league bylaws, consent and relocation provisions, existing sponsorship and venue agreements, regulatory/antitrust exposure, financial statements, and pending disputes. Parties should also model relocation scenarios, approval timelines, and covenant compliance to avoid closing delays.
Don’t Risk Your Deal: Get Expert Legal Help for Franchise Sales and Relocation
Franchise sales and relocation disputes highlight how easily ownership rights and fair market opportunities can be challenged. If your business faces similar issues involving governance conflicts, antitrust concerns, or interference in sale negotiations, consult an experienced business attorney today.