Three distinct sports league models are all jostling for dominance in global sport. For decades, European, US and centralised leagues have defined how sport is run, financed and experienced. But, as sport becomes a focus for global investment and a key part of the entertainment industry, traditional models are breaking down.
The question is, which one will come out on top? Or perhaps, which blended approach will become the most dominant? In order to assess this properly, we first need to look at the three different mindsets of each model.
The sports league models
The European model is built on open competition, promotion and relegation, and deep community ties. But it struggles with financial sustainability, particularly outside elite tiers.
The US model, by contrast, favours stability. Closed leagues, player drafts and salary caps are designed to maximise franchise value and reduce volatility. It’s a business first approach. However, its rigidity can dampen open competition and limit market responsiveness.
Then finally, there’s the centralised model – often state-backed, with sport seen as a vehicle for national pride. It focuses on elite performance and uniformity, often at the expense of local engagement and commercial autonomy.
Strengths and weaknesses
Each model has strengths. But none alone solves the challenges of a global sports marketplace under pressure from rising costs, stakeholder tensions, fragmented audiences and increasing regulatory scrutiny. In reality, these models are no longer competing in silos. Instead, we’re seeing deliberate cross-over.
The European Super League, though short-lived, was an overt attempt to apply US-style closed-league economics to European football. Saudi Arabia’s recent privatisation of major clubs signals a shift from state control to investor-led governance. In the US, women’s football is drifting towards a more open market, scrapping drafts and embracing free agency.
Even in the UK, sport is no longer left entirely to private governance. The creation of the Independent Football Regulator is a major structural intervention, borrowing from more centralised systems to protect financial integrity and fan trust.
What we’re seeing is a new era of modular sport governance – one where successful leagues borrow selectively to balance competitiveness, commercial appeal and cultural relevance.
For investors, this hybrid model is a feature, not a flaw. Capital is flowing into sports that combine regulatory clarity with commercial opportunity and fan growth.
What investors prize most is predictability with potential – rights frameworks that are legally robust, collective bargaining structures that minimise disruption, and governance models that can evolve as markets shift.
Optimal sports league
There’s a growing recognition that sporting unpredictability must be matched by structural predictability. That’s why many investors favour leagues with formal salary caps, revenue sharing and long-term CBAs.
In order to enable this blended future, the legal architecture of sport must also evolve.
Regulators need room to act without being dragged into court at every turn. Targeted legal exemptions – from competition law for instance – could help, provided they’re tied to strong governance and stakeholder protections.
Fixed-term CBAs in particular can be seen as highly beneficial; they lock in terms, reduce uncertainty and ensure that athlete welfare, investor interests and league governance stay aligned.
So, which model will come out on top?
None – and all. There is no one dominant global model emerging. The real winners will be those that build their own best-fit system, borrowing where necessary, protecting what matters and adapting quickly.
For investors, advisors and regulators alike, the message is clear; there is no one-size-fits-all playbook anymore. Sport is global, fluid and increasingly sophisticated. The winners won’t just be those who play well on the field – but those who structure smartly off it.
Keir Gordon is a partner at Charles Russell Speechlys