PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 19, 1996
Professional Sports Franchise Relocation Act of 1996 - Exempts from antitrust laws a professional sports league's enforcement or application of a rule authorizing the membership of the league to decide whether or not a member team may be relocated. Requires persons seeking to change the home territory of a member team to furnish to the media and all interested parties notice of such proposed change within 210 days before the commencement of the season in which the team is to play in such other location. Requires a relocation decision by a professional sports league to be based on rules, procedures, and the consideration of criteria that include: (1) demonstrated fan loyalty and support for the team; (2) the extent the team received public financial support; and (3) whether the team has incurred net operating losses. Allows the decision by a professional sports league to approve or disapprove the relocation of a member team to be reviewed in a civil action brought by an interested party subject to specified limitations. Limits the relief granted by the reviewing court to enjoining or approving enforcement of the league's decision. Sets forth provisions concerning debt payments by teams that relocate from publicly owned facilities that remain subject to debt for construction or improvements. Provides that this Act shall not effect a stadium authority's rights to seek specific enforcement of its lease or a club's rights if any to seek a judicial determination that its lease has been breached. Requires any community from which such professional sports league franchise relocates to receive 180 days' prior notice of any league decision to expand. Gives the community an opportunity to compete for such an expansion franchise on grounds no less favorable that those afforded to other communities. Applies this Act to any league action addressing relocation of a member team on or after June 1, 1995.
People & committees
Sen. Specter, Arlen [R-PA] · R–PA
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 Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2329-2330)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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.1625 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.1625 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.1625 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.1625 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.