Private Credit: The New Growth Fuel for Sports and Sports Tech
Apollo's $2.5T sports financing report quietly positions tech vendors, not just teams, as natural beneficiaries of credit infrastructure reshaping the industry
Hello sports tech enthusiasts 👋🏼 Welcome to Regen Sports, your twice-weekly deep dive into the intersection of sports and technology. Every Monday, catch up on the week’s most important developments in sports innovation, and every Thursday, explore in-depth analysis of trends, companies, and technological breakthroughs reshaping the future of sports.
Full disclosure: I don’t know much about financing. When Apollo Global Management released “The Financing Gap in Sports: Unlocking a $2.5 Trillion Opportunity“ last month, my plan was to skip it, another finance report for institutional investors, not for those of us building or covering sports technology.
Then I had to dig into what angle would actually matter for this newsletter, and something surfaced that I’ve hardly seen anyone else cover: Apollo explicitly bundles “data analytics,” streaming software, esports, fitness, and digital engagement into the $2.5 trillion sports economy it wants to finance. The headline “$2.5T gap” isn’t the story. The story is that private credit is about to become the operating system for sports growth, and sports tech companies sit right in the middle of that infrastructure.
Most coverage will focus on “sports franchises are under-levered at 10% loan-to-value versus 40-65% in adjacent sectors” and stop there. That’s important for team owners and institutional investors, but it misses the second-order effect: once large funds prove out team, stadium, and media-rights credit products, the next frontier is lending into the B2B tech stack that underpins those very cash flows.
This matters because we’re watching a financing regime change that will reshape which sports tech companies win, how fast they can scale, and how deeply they embed into the core economics of sports. Let me attempt to break down why Apollo’s report should fundamentally change how sports tech founders, executives, and investors think about capital strategy.
Main Theme: Sports Are Massively Under-Levered
Apollo’s central argument is straightforward: sports franchises operate at around 10% loan-to-value*, while comparable sectors like real estate, infrastructure, and media sit at 40-65%. This creates “whitespace” for private and hybrid credit across teams, stadiums, media rights, and (here’s the key part everyone’s glossing over) sports businesses.
The report’s Exhibit 8 treats “sports business financing” and “media-rights financing” right alongside team and stadium credit, explicitly including the broader ecosystem: digital media, live events, fitness, and data. That positioning is deliberate. Apollo isn’t just targeting team owners, it’s looking at the entire value chain that generates the $2.5 trillion sports economy.
The Numbers That Matter:
Global sports industry: $2.5 trillion
Media rights: $60+ billion annually in inflation-linked contracts
Franchise valuations compounding at ~13% annually for six decades
Current leverage: ~10% LTV versus 40-65% in adjacent sectors
Institutional capital participation: still in early innings
Apollo argues that sports have moved from game-day economics to multi-channel, scalable media and commerce ecosystems. Media rights, digital engagement, and adjacent wellness/fitness serve as core revenue engines. That is exactly the business case behind companies like Teamworks, Hudl, and digital ticketing/CRM platforms which monetise and orchestrate those revenue streams for rights holders.
The financing gap isn’t just about teams needing capital. It’s about an entire ecosystem transitioning from equity-dependent growth to credit-backed scaling tied to predictable, contractual cash flows.
* i.e. the loan amount to the property’s value
Why Sports Tech Sits at the Centre of This Credit Thesis
Apollo’s emphasis on AI, data, and multi-channel monetisation isn’t a charade, it’s the operational foundation for why credit works in sports. The report highlights several technology-driven revenue streams that make sports attractive for lenders:
AI and Data as Credit-Friendly Drivers: Apollo emphasises AI as a tailwind reinforcing sports’ durability rather than disrupting it. Live, human performance is structurally insulated from AI substitution, but AI enhances operations: automated highlights, real-time tracking, predictive analytics, ticket optimisation, and AI-led player valuation (with Ajax cited as a case study).
This combination of highly durable demand plus measurable AI-driven efficiency looks ideal for lenders: predictable cash flows with technology improving margins and asset value. Houlihan Lokey’s 2025 sports market update highlighted “sports tech and data” as a favoured area for financial investors, reemphasising that capital is already flowing into software unifying operations, fan data, and media output.
Credit for Tech-Heavy Capital Expenditure: Stadium projects, production upgrades, and media-rights packages increasingly require significant technology investments: 5G, in-venue connectivity, computer-vision systems, AI-based production, dynamic pricing, and fan data platforms. Dakota’s December 2025 sports investing report noted that teams and sports production companies are turning to credit-backed facilities for “technology initiatives” as they scale beyond what equity alone can support.
That creates steady demand for vendors who can tie products to financeable cash flows, be it an uplift in sponsorship yield, ticketing revenue, or media value. When a stadium upgrade includes $50 million in tech infrastructure, lenders financing that project want to know the technology delivers measurable ROI. Vendors who can demonstrate that link become preferred partners.
Credit as Scale Capital for “Operating Systems”: Companies building platforms that unify multiple revenue streams, Teamworks for operations and communications, Hudl for video and analytics, ticketing systems like SeatGeek or Ticketmaster integrating with CRM and sponsorship activation, are natural beneficiaries of this credit infrastructure.
These platforms generate recurring B2B revenue tied directly to the cash flows Apollo wants to finance. A credit facility backing a league’s media operations or stadium technology can flow downstream to technology vendors through multi-year contracts, revenue-share agreements, or minimum-guarantee structures. The vendor gets predictable capital for R&D and expansion; the lender gets exposure to cash flows backed by long-duration media and sponsorship contracts.
The Second-Order Effect: Credit Rails for Tech Vendors
Here’s where this gets interesting for sports tech companies: once credit infrastructure is built for teams and venues, it inevitably extends to the technology stack powering those assets.
Think about how enterprise software financing evolved. Initially, companies like Salesforce and Adobe relied on venture capital. As their revenues became predictable through subscription models, they accessed credit facilities tied to recurring revenue. Eventually, their customers started financing software purchases through structured arrangements rather than just operational budgets.
Sports tech is entering a similar transition, accelerated by Apollo’s thesis. When teams, leagues, and venues can access credit tied to media rights and sponsorship revenues, they can finance technology purchases the same way they finance stadium upgrades or player salaries, through structured credit rather than hitting operational budgets.
What This Means Practically:
Revenue-Share Models Backed by Credit: Tech vendors can structure deals where upside is tied to incremental revenue (ticket sales, sponsorship yield, media value) with downside protected by credit facilities. The team gets technology without upfront capital; the vendor gets contracted minimums backed by the team’s credit facility; the lender gets exposure to measurable revenue uplift.
Financed Technology Contracts: Rather than teams purchasing software through annual operation expense budgets, they can structure multi-year contracts financed through credit facilities tied to the revenue those systems generate. A dynamic pricing platform that increases ticket revenue by 15% can be financed against that incremental revenue rather than competing with other operational expenses.
Tech as “Infrastructure-Like” Investments: Apollo positions sports assets as having infrastructure-like characteristics: long-duration cash flows, inflation-linked revenues, and cultural belief creating barriers to competition. Technology platforms embedded deeply enough into operations (CRM systems, production tools, data platforms) can claim similar characteristics, making them attractive for credit-backed expansion.
Where the Money Flows First: Three Target Areas
Based on Apollo’s framework and supporting market intelligence, three sports tech categories are positioned to benefit most immediately from this credit infrastructure:
1. Fan Data Platforms and Dynamic Pricing Engines
These systems tie directly to ticketing and sponsorship revenues, the exact cash flows Apollo wants to finance. A CRM platform that enables personalised fan engagement, dynamic pricing, or targeted sponsorship activation can demonstrate clear ROI measured in incremental revenue per fan.
Companies like SeatGeek, Satisfi Labs, or venue-specific CRM systems become candidates for credit-backed scaling because they’re operationally embedded in revenue generation. When a team secures credit to optimise its commercial operations, the technology enabling that optimisation becomes part of the financed package.
2. AI Content and Production Tools
Apollo emphasises media rights as the growth engine—$60+ billion annually in inflation-linked contracts functioning like infrastructure-style revenue streams. Technology that enhances media value directly impacts the asset Apollo wants to finance.
Companies like WSC Sports (automated highlights), SMT (broadcast graphics), or emerging AI production tools can position as media-rights amplifiers. If a league’s media contract is worth $500 million annually and AI production increases engagement metrics by 10%, that incremental value becomes financeable. The technology enabling it becomes part of the credit infrastructure rather than a discretionary expense.
3. Participation and Infrastructure Tech in High-Growth Segments
Apollo highlights women’s sports revenues tripling from 2022 to a projected $2.4 billion in 2025, with faster sponsorship growth than men’s leagues. It also profiles niche but fast-growing properties like F1, UFC, and pickleball seeing double-digit growth in attendance, media, and digital engagement.
These segments often lack deep equity-capitalised ownership but have strong growth and media narratives, prime territory for structured credit financing technology that can professionalise operations. Women’s leagues building streaming platforms, youth sports organisations adopting recruiting and venue management systems, or niche properties investing in fan data infrastructure become credit opportunities when tied to demonstrable revenue growth.
Other market views on youth sports and women’s sports point to investments in tech-enabled platforms (recruiting, venue management, NIL operations) as core themes, reinforcing that new capital will likely deploy into technology legitimising these segments.
What This Means for Different Stakeholders
For Sports Tech Founders and Executives
Rethink Your Capital Strategy: If your product ties to measurable revenue uplift (ticketing, sponsorship, media value), explore credit-backed growth rather than just equity rounds. Design cap tables and financial models that work for credit investors, not just VCs.
Build for Financeable ROI: Structure products with clear, measurable returns tied to specific revenue streams. “Our platform increases sponsorship yield by 12%” is more financeable than “we improve fan engagement.” Quantify everything.
Prepare for Lenders, Not Just Investors: This means better reporting, predictable multi-year contracts with rights holders, and positioning as “infrastructure-like” providers attached to media or sponsorship cash flows. Credit investors want different metrics than venture capitalists so focus on revenue predictability, churn rates, and contractual protections.
For Sports Organisations and Leagues
Technology Becomes Financeable Capital Expenditure: Rather than treating tech as operational expense competing with other priorities, structure technology investments as financed initiatives tied to revenue growth. A $10 million CRM implementation that increases ticket revenue by $3 million annually can be financed against that incremental revenue.
Vendor Selection Shifts: Prioritise technology partners who can demonstrate clear ROI and work within credit-backed structures. Vendors offering revenue-share models with downside protection become more attractive than those requiring large upfront payments.
Strategic Advantage in Negotiation: Understanding how credit infrastructure works gives leagues leverage in technology procurement. If a vendor’s product genuinely drives measurable revenue, structure deals where both parties benefit from credit-backed scaling rather than treating it as a pure cost centre.
For Investors (Venture and Credit)
The Opportunity Beyond Equity: Sports tech has historically been venture-backed with mixed exit outcomes. Credit infrastructure creates alternative pathways: financing growth through revenue-based structures, backing technology rollups consolidating fragmented markets, or providing capital to vendors whose customers are accessing Apollo-style credit facilities.
Due Diligence Focus Shifts: Beyond traditional venture metrics (TAM, growth rate, team), evaluate how deeply technology embeds in revenue-generating operations, what percentage of customer contracts extend beyond 12 months, and whether products tie to financeable outcomes (media value, sponsorship yield, ticket revenue).
Timing Advantage: This financing regime change is happening now. Early movers who understand how to structure sports tech investments around credit infrastructure rather than pure equity will capture disproportionate returns as more teams, leagues, and venues access private credit.
The Uncomfortable Truth Nobody’s Saying
Apollo’s report is bullish on sports as an asset class, and most coverage will parrot that optimism. But here’s what the financing angle actually reveals: many sports tech companies have been building for the wrong capital structure.
If your product requires continuous equity infusions to scale, lacks clear ties to measurable revenue outcomes, or operates as a discretionary expense rather than operational infrastructure, you’re misaligned with where capital is flowing. The sports organisations accessing Apollo’s credit facilities will prioritise technology that can be financed the same way, tied to contractual revenues with measurable ROI.
This isn’t theoretical. Houlihan Lokey’s data shows financial investors are already bullish on “sports tech and data,” and Dakota reports that production companies and tech vendors are structuring credit facilities for scaling. The regime change is underway; the question is whether sports tech companies recognise it and adapt their business models accordingly.
Why I’m Writing This Despite Not Being a Finance Expert
The implication is clear: this financing shift will determine which sports tech companies succeed over the next decade more than any product innovation or market trend.
The sports tech companies that understand this shift and restructure their business models accordingly—moving from “sell software” to “provide revenue-generating infrastructure that can be financed like any other cash-flow-producing asset”—will capture disproportionate value as Apollo’s $2.5 trillion financing thesis plays out.
For those of us who don’t speak fluent finance, the translation is simple: the money flowing into sports is changing form from equity to credit, and that changes everything about how technology gets funded, deployed, and valued in this industry.
Why This Angle Matters
Most coverage of Apollo’s report will focus on franchise valuations, institutional investor entry, and the “$2.5T opportunity” headline. That’s important for team owners and large asset managers, but it misses what this means for the technology layer powering sports’ evolution.
Apollo’s explicit inclusion of “sports business financing” alongside team and stadium credit, with data analytics, streaming software, and digital engagement listed as core components of the $2.5T economy, signals that credit infrastructure won’t stop at team balance sheets. It will flow through to the vendors, platforms, and systems generating the cash flows being financed.
For sports tech founders, executives, and investors, this change from equity-dependent growth to credit-backed scaling represents the most significant capital market shift since venture money started flowing into sports technology a decade ago. Understanding it early creates strategic advantage; ignoring it risks building companies misaligned with where capital is actually flowing.
As always, stay tuned for next week’s roundup as we continue tracking the transformative developments reshaping the global sports technology landscape.
Thanks for reading,
Dean
P.S. If you found this newsletter valuable, please consider sharing. The sports tech industry grows stronger when we learn together.
Top quality breakdown