MLB and NFL Unions Face Controversy Over Board Decision

Federal authorities have kicked off a deep investigation into OneTeam Partners, a licensing venture partly owned by the players unions of five major sports leagues. This all started because of a scrapped incentive plan that raised some serious questions about conflicts of interest.

The case highlights tricky governance issues. It also exposes the tangled relationship between unions and for-profit ventures in pro sports.

So what happened, who’s tangled up in this, and what could it mean for the future of sports licensing—or union accountability?

The Roots of Controversy: What Sparked the Investigation?

Federal scrutiny began after a proposed incentive plan surfaced in June 2024. Eight board members, including union leaders like Lloyd Howell Jr. from the NFLPA and Tony Clark from the MLBPA, all approved a resolution to award “profit units” linked to OneTeam’s financial results.

These units could turn into cash payouts if the company did well. That’s where things got messy.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

The incentive plan didn’t sit well with everyone. Someone at the NFLPA flagged it, arguing that the setup could let board reps profit instead of the union members they’re supposed to support.

There were also warnings that this plan might shrink player stakes. Some doubted whether regular members even knew what was at stake financially.

The Business Breakdown: Who Holds Power in OneTeam?

The board makeup at OneTeam Partners explains why these worries snowballed. Union stakeholders actually own most of the company:

  • NFLPA: 44% stake
  • MLBPA: 22% stake
  • Major League Soccer Players Association (MLSPA): 3.3% stake
  • U.S. Women’s National Team Players Association (USWNTPA): 0.3% stake
  • Women’s National Basketball Players Association (WNBPA): 0.2% stake

Outside investors own 30%. Union leaders have real power here, which is great for economic control—but it also opens the door to oversight headaches.

The plan to pay board members directly ramped up concerns that business interests might edge out union duties to their members.

Federal Investigation: Key Players and Progress

Prosecutor David Berman from the Eastern District of New York is leading the federal probe. FBI agents have reached out to MLB and NFL players and their reps as of June 2025.

The main worry? That profit units could have padded the pockets of union leaders instead of helping the wider athlete community.

Union Response and Legal Developments

NFLPA and MLBPA both brought in outside lawyers and have firmly denied any wrongdoing. Earlier reviews, sparked by whistleblower tips, found that OneTeam and the unions followed the rules.

Even so, the investigation keeps raising questions about transparency and how union-backed businesses are run.

Financial Stakes and Performance

This licensing venture is no small player. From early 2024 to 2025, the NFLPA pulled in $101 million through OneTeam, and the MLBPA made $45 million in 2024 alone.

Those numbers show just how central OneTeam has become to group licensing deals for pro athletes.

Unions want to use these partnerships to benefit their members. But when leadership chases profits, they risk losing sight of their duty to protect everyday athletes. That’s the real tension at the heart of this mess.

The Road Ahead

This case could mark a turning point in how unions approach corporate partnerships. Will stricter oversight mechanisms emerge?

Or maybe this whole situation just becomes a cautionary tale for leadership stepping into the business arena. The investigation reminds us that balancing fiduciary duties with entrepreneurial ambition isn’t easy—there are plenty of pitfalls along the way.

As federal investigators dig deeper, the sports industry is watching. There’s a lot at stake when it comes to player licensing, union governance, and the trust athletes place in their representatives.

How will OneTeam Partners and its stakeholders handle the storm ahead? Hard to say right now.

 
Here is the source article for this story: The board decision that sent the MLB, NFL unions into controversy

Scroll to Top