Building in Public
OpenCore Strategy· Updated 25d ago

Partner ownership (85/15) or single-entity?

Distributed risk vs. centralized control. The answer likely follows from which strategic option is chosen.

The Options

Partner model (85/15)

Local owners hold 85%, league holds 15% equity per club.

Pros

  • +Distributed risk — underperforming markets absorbed locally
  • +Local ownership drives local market engagement
  • +Lower capital burden on league ($625K seed)
  • +Owners have skin in the game for their community

Trade-offs

  • −Risk of undercapitalized owners (NISA killer)
  • −Less control over quality and standards
  • −Potential for rogue owners
  • −$500K expansion fee may not filter enough

Evidence

Decided — partner model preferred for A/BUndercapitalized local owners — USL/NISA patternUSL L1 owner economics comparison
2 votes · Team 0 · Community 2100%

Single-entity

League owns all clubs centrally (PLL model).

Pros

  • +Full control over quality and standards
  • +Consistent product across all markets
  • +Centralized decision-making, faster execution
  • +No rogue owner risk

Trade-offs

  • −Requires dramatically more capital
  • −Higher operational bandwidth needed
  • −Less local community connection

Evidence

PLL — single-entity controlSummer showcase — single-entity model
0 votes

General Discussion

0 comments

No comments yet — start the thread.