PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 30, 1995
Fans Rights Act of 1995 - Declares that it shall not be unlawful by reason of any provision of the antitrust laws for a professional sports league to enforce rules authorizing the membership of the league to decide that a member club of such league shall not be relocated. Sets forth criteria for relocation decisions by leagues, including: (1) fan loyalty; (2) the extent to which the team received public financial support by means of any publicly financed playing facility, special tax treatment, or any other form of such support; (3) the adequacy of the stadium in which the team played its home games in the previous season, and the willingness of the stadium, arena authority, or local government to remedy any deficiencies in the facility; and (4) whether the team has incurred net operating losses, exclusive of depreciation and amortization, sufficient to threaten the continued financial viability of the team. Requires any person seeking to change the home territory of a member team to furnish notice to all interested parties of the proposed change not later than 180 days before the commencement of the season in which the member team is to play in such other location. Sets forth notice requirements. Provides that, during the 180-day notice period, a local government, stadium, arena authority, person, or any combination thereof: (1) may prepare and present a proposal to purchase the member team to retain the team in the home territory; and (2) shall be given the opportunity to prepare and present such a proposal. Requires the response of the owner to any offer made to be in writing and delivered in person or by certified mail, stating in detail the reasons for refusal of any bona fide offer. Directs the league to make a determination with respect to the location of such member team's home territory before the expiration of the notice period, after conducting a hearing at which interested parties are afforded an opportunity to present testimony. Sets forth provisions regarding judicial review. Prohibits making or offering to make a payment, or to provide or arrange with others for the provision of other value, to a league or any of its members in connection with a decision regarding the relocation of a member team.
People & committees
Sen. Glenn, John H., Jr. [D-OH] · D–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S17866-17869)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1439 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1439 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1439 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1439 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.