This bill would change the tax code so that a professional women’s sports franchise could not be amortized if it allows biological males to participate. In practical terms, that means affected teams or investors would lose a federal tax deduction tied to the cost of buying or building the franchise. The measure is aimed at women’s sports organizations and the owners, investors, and tax professionals who structure those businesses. It has been introduced in the House and referred to the Ways and Means Committee, which handles tax legislation.
What This Bill Does
- Bars amortization for a professional women’s sports franchise in the Internal Revenue Code
- Applies when the franchise "allows biological males to participate"
- Would change the federal tax treatment of affected teams and investors
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means
- Introduced in the House on June 25, 2026
Who This Bill Affects
If you are an owner, investor, or tax advisor for a professional women’s sports franchise, this bill could change the franchise’s federal tax treatment by blocking amortization when the team allows biological males to participate. That could increase taxable income and reduce the after-tax value of the franchise structure. For most other people, the direct effect would be minimal because the bill applies only to a narrow slice of professional sports businesses.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Women’s sports advocates They may argue that women’s leagues should be reserved for female athletes and that the tax code should not subsidize franchises that depart from that standard. In their view, the bill creates a financial incentive to preserve sex-segregated competition.
- Franchise owners who want clear eligibility rules Some owners may prefer a federal tax rule that encourages uniform policies and reduces controversy around roster eligibility. They may see the bill as protecting the brand and identity of women’s professional sports.
- Taxpayers concerned about federal subsidies Supporters can argue that tax deductions should not reward business models they believe conflict with the purpose of women’s sports leagues. They may view the loss of amortization as a straightforward way to align tax benefits with participation rules.
- Women’s sports league operators They may object that tax penalties are a blunt tool for managing eligibility rules and could create compliance uncertainty for teams and investors. They may also argue that sports governance should be handled by leagues rather than the tax code.
- LGBTQ rights advocates They are likely to see the bill as targeting transgender and intersex participation in a specific athletic setting through the tax system. Their argument would be that federal law should not use tax penalties to enforce exclusionary sports policies.
- Sports investors and team financiers Investors may oppose the bill because it reduces the after-tax value of franchise purchases and complicates valuation. They may argue that using tax law to punish a narrow participation choice could deter capital formation in women’s sports.
Key Implications
-
““prohibit amortization of any professional women's sports franchise””
This would deny a normal tax deduction method tied to the purchase cost of a franchise. For affected teams and investors, that can mean higher taxable income over time and a less favorable deal structure.
-
““which allows biological males to participate””
The tax penalty is triggered by a participation rule, not by league size or revenue. That means the bill ties a financial consequence to a specific eligibility policy used by a women’s sports organization.
-
““to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986””
The bill does not create a new sports-regulation agency or grant; it changes federal tax law. That makes the IRS and tax planners central to how the rule would be applied in practice.
-
““and for other purposes””
This standard legislative phrase leaves room for related technical changes if the bill advances. In practice, that can affect how the rule is drafted, enforced, or integrated into existing tax provisions.
Official Source & Bill Facts
BillBoard checks this page against public Congress.gov metadata, then adds plain-English analysis where available.
- Bill
- HR 9487
- Congress
- 119th Congress
- Official title
- To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit amortization of any professional women's sports franchise which allows biological males to participate, and for other purposes.
- Policy area
- Economy & Finance
- Latest action
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. (June 25, 2026)
- Last updated
- June 26, 2026
Latest Status
June 25, 2026
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.