This post is one in a series on the business of sports, curated by Hult professors Tom Sullivan and Rob Anthony and leading up to the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The content series highlights the intersection of business and the global sports industry, and what they can learn from each other.

Sports are big business. Global spending on sports is estimated at more than 400 billion USD per year. Clubs are valued in the billions and traded in markets where the ceiling for valuations seems to rise with every new deal.   

Yet, unlike in traditional industries, mergers are rare in sports. Teams are place-based, sustained by deep-rooted local loyalties. You’ll never see Manchester United and Manchester City merging to better compete with Liverpool. But a closer look reveals that mergers in spirit do happen, often under a different name. 

Hult Professors Viktoria Dalko, a leading scholar of finance, and Thomas Sullivan, a soccer fan and lecturer in leadership and organizational behavior, weigh in below on a case where a player’s move across clubs, leagues, and continents represents more than a simple acquisition—it’s a strategic merger of brands. 

Through the lens of Lionel Messi’s move to Inter Miami, we’ll look at how mergers and acquisitions (M&A) dynamics operate in the world of sports, and what lessons they hold for the broader business of sports. 

Messi’s Move to Miami 

In July 2023, Inter Miami of Major League Soccer (MLS) shocked the sporting world by announcing the signing of Lionel Messi to a two-and-a-half-year contract. The surprise was understandable. Messi, arguably the best-known player of the last two decades, had burst onto the international football scene as a 17-year-old wunderkind at FC Barcelona. The most prolific scorer of his generation, he achieved extraordinary success with Barcelona and later Paris Saint-Germain (PSG), while leading Argentina to the pinnacle of world football by capturing the 2022 FIFA World Cup. 

When Messi’s contract with PSG ended in mid-2023, few expected MLS to be his next destination. The league, still viewed as a tier below Europe’s top competitions, seemed an unlikely home for a global superstar. At the same time, the Saudi Pro League was aggressively recruiting elite players with staggering salaries and reportedly offering Messi up to 1 billion USD to join. 

Although MLS lacks the global prestige of Europe’s major leagues, it enjoys robust US fan support, with 2024 attendance averaging roughly 23,000 per game.  That’s comparable to Brazil’s top flight, Série A.  

The Messi effect 

Messi’s arrival transformed Inter Miami almost overnight. Since his signing, the club has won multiple trophies, including the Campeones Cup and MLS’s Supporters’ Shield, while Messi himself was named 2024 Player of the Year.   

Off the pitch, Inter Miami’s ticket sales surged by 35%, and the team’s valuation doubled from 600 million USD to 1.2 billion USD in just one year. Other clubs also benefited: Miami’s away matches sold out nationwide, with secondary market prices for 50 USD tickets soaring above 700 USD. 

Which brings us back to Messi. Why did he choose this deal, and what exactly did it entail? His reported annual salary was 20 million USD, far below the Saudi offer. This leads to some relevant business questions about Messi’s deal. 

Is Lionel Messi an employee or a shareholder of Inter Miami? 

The question is whether the top athlete was acquired or whether he became an owner of the club, or even of the league itself. Most headlines about Lionel Messi’s move to Inter Miami presented it as if he had turned down a record Saudi offer in favor of less money and a better lifestyle.  

But viewed through the lens of finance, and especially mergers and acquisitions, a more complex picture emerges.

The distinction lies in whether Messi is merely an employee of Inter Miami or a partner who shares in the club’s and the league’s growth. 

To answer that, we first look at how these deals are usually structured. The traditional model for a superstar joining a club has remained remarkably consistent. The contract lasts for a fixed number of years and often includes a player option, a team option, and a no-trade clause.  

Cristiano Ronaldo’s reported 275-million USD annual payout at Al-Nassr, for example, combines base salary and performance incentives in that conventional pattern. Such features manage risk and give flexibility to both sides, but they do not alter the fundamental truth: the player remains under an employment contract. The club is buying performance, and all payments—whether salary, bonuses, or awards—are cash-based. 

When the club’s value rises, the benefit accrues to its owners, not its players. In legal and financial terms, the club acquires the player’s time, but not a share of ownership. Players may still build independent wealth through personal ventures—shoe deals, sponsorships, media contracts—but those exist outside the player-club relationship. The arrangement remains one of labor and compensation, not partnership and co-ownership.  

It is precisely for this reason that Lionel Messi’s move to Inter Miami stands out. It goes beyond the typical high-salary, fixed-term acquisition model. The Messi–Inter Miami agreement looks less like a job contract and more like a partnership.   

What makes Messi’s deal different? 

While full details are not public, credible reports suggest that Messi’s contract includes three distinctive elements rarely seen in sports. 

First, Messi participates in league-wide media revenue. His compensation reportedly includes a share of subscriptions to the MLS Season Pass on Apple TV+. If his arrival draws new viewers and subscribers, he shares in that upside. This mechanism behaves more like an equity-linked instrument whose payoff depends on the growth of the business, not solely on his individual performance. 

 Second, Messi’s relationship with Adidas and other MLS commercial partners extends beyond personal endorsement. His global appeal directly enhances league-wide merchandise sales, visibility, and sponsorship value. In recognizing that impact, MLS effectively treats Messi not as a hired employee but as a contributor to the growth of the entire ecosystem. 

 Third, Messi is believed to have a path to ownership through an option to acquire equity in the MLS Inter Miami franchise at a preferential price. That provision moves him closer to a future shareholder role. Together, these elements create a hybrid structure combining salary, profit sharing, revenue participation, and potential equity. 

Performer or partner? 

From a mergers and acquisitions perspective, the question becomes whether Messi is an acquired asset or a co-investor in the MLS enterprise. His deal blurs the lines between acquisition, merger, and alliance.  

In an acquisition-type deal, the club purchases the player’s services for a fixed period, retaining all upside. In a merger-type deal, both parties integrate their brands and share in value creation, aligning incentives for growth. In an alliance, the relationship is temporary and transactional, typically limited to co-branding or sponsorship. 

Messi’s move sits clearly closer to the merger model. His brand presence brings new revenue, global reach, and enhanced prestige to MLS, Apple, and Adidas, while his own brand benefits from financial structures tied to that collective success. Though legally still an employee, his incentives and influence resemble those of a strategic equity partner rather than a purchased performer.  

What this means for the future of sports business 

For future sports executives, agents, and students of the business of sport, this distinction between an athlete as an employee or an equity partner is instructive. The key question is no longer simply where the highest salary lies, but what kind of deal is being created. An acquisition model maximizes short-term income. A merger model seeks shared value and long-term growth. Thinking as a deal maker means asking whether the athlete should remain an employee or become a co-creator of enterprise value.  

Ronaldo’s contract with Al-Nassr may appear richer in the short run, but the long view suggests that Messi’s structure positions him for far greater cumulative influence and value creation. 

Seen in this light, Messi’s contract illustrates how the future of sports will increasingly be shaped by deal structures that borrow from the logic of corporate mergers, not traditional payroll negotiations.  

The most valuable athletes will not simply be acquired; they will form partnerships that integrate brands, incentives, and long-term strategic interests. For clubs and leagues, this requires thinking less like employers and more like co-owners in a shared enterprise. For players, it offers a path to participate in the value they help create.  

Messi’s move to Inter Miami signals a turning point in that evolution, showing how sports can redefine the boundaries between talent, ownership, and the business of global competition. 

About the authors

Viktoria Dalko
A leading academic at Hult, Harvard, and CUNY, Dr. Dalko previously served as an advisor to the president of the National Bank of Hungary and as chief of staff to the Budget, Tax, and Finance Committee of the Hungarian Parliament. She co-authored Regulating Competition in Stock Markets with Nobel Laureate Professor Lawrence Klein and other world-class researchers.  

Thomas Sullivan
Thomas Sullivan is a professor of leadership skills, a leadership coach, and discipline lead for the leadership skills track. He has spent 20 years as a consultant, facilitator, coach, and lecturer on designing, leading, and implementing personal and organizational change efforts across diverse settings worldwide.