Laurie Pinto works on some of the biggest deals across the sports landscape, and the investor strategies he encounters are game-changing.
With the 2026 World Cup around the corner, the sports finance sector is heating up — and few advisers are at the center of more high-stakes talks than Laurie Pinto.
From cross-border M&A and private equity-style ownership structures to discreet football club deals, Pinto has spent decades navigating the intersection of finance and sport.
Through his eponymous firm, Pinto Capital LLP, he has advised everyone from Premier League clubs to emerging teams seeking new capital and international growth opportunities.
Pinto took part in this month’s Global Salon series, where he discussed the surging influence of American investors in European football and why sports franchises are increasingly viewed as scalable global assets.
He also weighs in on the future of cricket, the limits of SPAC-driven sports deals, and how geopolitical instability — from capital scrutiny to regional conflict — is reshaping the economics of today’s athletic events.
Global Finance: Set the stage for us. We’re just weeks away from the World Cup, and the atmosphere feels volatile. Fans are frustrated by skyrocketing ticket prices and logistical hurdles, and U.S. Soccer’s sporting director recently resigned. Is this one of the more chaotic build-ups you’ve seen in modern sports finance?
Laurie Pinto: It’s fast-moving, and tickets are incredibly expensive—the cheapest for the final is $5,000. Are things chaotic? Yes, fans are coming from 42 countries with vastly different expectations. Big football events always face skepticism. Qatar’s alcohol and LGBTQ restrictions sparked fears, but the tournament ran smoothly. Russia and Germany had logistical challenges, too. So I see this as part of the normal practice from naysayers. What’s different here is scale for the U.S.: This is a pivotal moment for soccer, especially for kids. Prices for tickets, flights, and hotels are eye-wateringly high, but that’s normal for major events.
GF: Has “Welcome to Wrexham” changed investor behavior?
Pinto: Ryan Reynolds has had a huge impact on English football, but American investors were already noticing the documentary “Sunderland ’Til I Die,” which drew 66 million viewers and I think was the second most-watched sports documentary on Netflix, after “The Last Dance” [about Michael Jordan and the Bulls]. That opened the eyes of American investors to the fact that these clubs have 100 years of history, amazingly sticky fan bases, great pedigree, and are affordable. If you want to buy into an American sport, name any franchise you can buy for under $8 billion. It’s hard, and there aren’t that many people who can stroke checks for $8 billion.
Americans also understand marketing and the creator economy. They say, “We can help manage these businesses better, both on the pitch and off the pitch.” American sports are an asset class and are incredibly professionally managed compared to the UK and Europe. And if you can transplant some of that expertise, you can take some of these loss-making clubs and make them profitable, and then the valuation goes up dramatically.
GF: With your cross-border experience, how do geopolitical factors like regulation and capital controls affect sports deals?
Pinto: What they do is, there’s an immense amount of KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering). It’s not just a matter of “who is the buyer?” It’s more about “what is your source of funds?” and “who is the ultimate beneficial owner or UBO?” You see deals for clubs where their GP/LP structures are like private equity, and the LPs are the ultimate beneficial owners.
Private equity guys structure their investments that way, and they take a carry on the performance. They help manage the investment. And that’s a very commonplace thing in American sport and is becoming increasingly common in the UK and Europe. There’s no capital control, but there is a deep sense to make sure there isn’t money laundering going on. And can the people really afford it? And is it really their money? Because if people don’t disclose where their money comes from, generally, it’s not for a good reason.
GF: Have you seen a major shift in how clubs are valued in recent years? Is there a pre- and post-Ryan Reynolds era?
Pinto: About 10 years ago, there was no valuation methodology. Now, clubs are valued at multiples of revenue, even if they are loss-making. Intangible assets are better monetized through apps, second-screen connectivity, surge pricing, AI—more personalized user experiences, scalable and multilingual, enhancing valuation.
The lifetime value (LTV) of a fan is important. Consulting groups estimate £100–£2,000 per fan. Manchester United has a billion fans, worth roughly $10 billion. At smaller clubs, the value of a fan is even higher; in Sunderland, stadiums are always full, rain or shine. Loyalty is much higher, affecting valuation metrics. Swansea City AFC, pre-Luka Modric and Snoop Dog, had 500,000 fans; now they claim connections to over 100 million.
GF: Do you expect U.S. entities buying into top UK divisions to change the product, and if so, how?
Pinto: It’s already changing. The off-pitch professionalism is increasing—how clubs monetize non-match days, preseason tours, overseas fans, etc. Americanization brings deeper expertise. Big clubs benefit, and even smaller clubs in League One or League Two can become profitable quickly. Private equity investing in sport isn’t an issue; U.S. investors are comfortable with leverage, more so than Europeans.
GF: In recent years, we’ve seen several sports teams list on stock exchanges, often with mixed results and significant volatility. At the same time, SPACs emerged in the U.S. with ambitions to buy football clubs, including lower-tier European teams. What’s your take?
Pinto: A SPAC will pursue any deal that makes economic sense for its sponsors, but it’s very difficult for a SPAC to buy a UK or European soccer club because it takes so long for them to get to the vote, and the vote might not even happen, and the soccer club will give away all the optionality. John Textor’s Eagle Football would’ve been the best SPAC, with holdings including Lyon, Botafogo and Crystal Palace. They looked at it with James Dinan of the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks and York Capital, but that didn’t get over the line. SPACs just take so long to get done.
GF: What new sports investing trends are you noticing?
Pinto: What we are starting to see are new platforms that try to create exposure without traditional ownership. Some firms are building instruments that resemble CFDs or synthetic shares in clubs, and I’ve been working with a platform called Vestible, which is exploring sports investment access in a different way.
The idea is to give investors economic exposure to performance without requiring full ownership obligations—things like governance, operational responsibilities, or capital calls. There’s also growing interest in fractional ownership and tokenized models, often linked to fan engagement or loyalty programs. These concepts are interesting, and they have a place, but they haven’t yet broken into mainstream investor behavior.
GF: Cricket is hugely popular in countries like India but hasn’t really taken off here. Given its unique global footprint, how easy is it for a sport like that to expand in the U.S.?
Pinto: I am super positive on cricket, which is the second-biggest sport on Earth. It’s the fastest-growing women’s sport on Earth. It’s also the most in-game bet on sport on Earth. When they had the World Cup in New York in 2024, I believe it was a big success. Winning a game meant it went from the back pages to the front page of the Wall Street Journal. Suddenly, one’s looking at the economics of cricket. We’ve been very active in cricket. It has largely been an Indian subcontinent game, but it’s exciting, it’s fun, and I see cricket growing in the States.
Major League cricket has few full storms, but I think it’s coming. San Francisco Unicorns, the guys you want to watch in terms of how to get it right, but you’re seeing a lot of money going into cricket right now from NFL owners. Two of the richest guys in America tried, but failed, to buy into Indian cricket less than a month ago—the Walton family and the Ford family, the owners of the Denver Broncos and Detroit Lions. The Glazers, who own Tampa Bay, have been buying into cricket, and I can assure you other owners have been talking to us about it, too.
GF: Do you know why?
Pinto: Because they see exactly the same demographics you see in the NFL. It’s a very big domestic fan base, with very few games. But each game is a huge occasion, with massive television deals and a huge moat around it, which means it can’t get challenged. Go to any park in New York on a weekend, and you will see people playing some version of either 20/20 or over 50. The challenge is for a game to really catch on; it needs to start with the kids, and this is why the NBA is so successful: you don’t need any equipment to play basketball. You just need a ball. And you can play it at any level and still enjoy it. Culturally, at the moment, cricket is nowhere near that in America.
GF: We have a lot of basketball talent here, with college programs, NIL deals, and players going overseas. When will European basketball reach the same competitive level as the NBA—or U.S. soccer could match European clubs in popularity?
Pinto: Will NBA Europe be successful? They just finished the first round of franchise bidding, but it’s been slow. Timing was terrible—the war in Iran disrupted three of the major bidders, all Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds. It’s hard to spend aggressively overseas when people back home are in bomb shelters. Give me the war’s end date, and I’ll tell you when that money comes back.
That said, European basketball is bigger than many realize. Many European players are thriving in the NBA. I went to the Paris Games last year—amazing, electric atmosphere. There are lots of talented French and Australian players making an impact. Do I think Europe will ever match the NBA in scale? No. Soccer dominates there. NBA Europe is growing, but it still has a long way to go.