PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 23, 1996
Professional Sports Antitrust Clarification Act of 1996 - Permits a professional sports league or its member franchises to establish and enforce rules and procedures for deciding whether a member franchise may change its home territory, notwithstanding the antitrust laws. Specifies requirements for antitrust protection, including that the league promote comparable economic opportunities by sharing revenue among member franchises to account for disparities in revenue or savings due to public benefits and subsidies. Requires such franchise relocation rules and procedures to provide for consideration of various factors to protect the public interest, including: (1) fan support; (2) the extent of public financial support received; (3) the effect on existing contracts; (4) the extent of any net operating losses; and (5) any bona fide offer to purchase the franchise and keep it in its home territory. Provides for judicial review in actions challenging establishment or enforcement of such rules and procedures.
People & committees
Sen. Thurmond, Strom [R-SC] · R–SC
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 S3955-3956)
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.1696 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.1696 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.1696 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.1696 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.