How John Fisher Became the Most Despised Owner in Professional Sports
From anonymous billionaire to the public face of franchise abandonment. The arc of baseball's most controversial ownership.
Before the A's relocation became a national news story, most people outside the Bay Area had never heard of John Fisher. He was among the more anonymous major sports franchise owners in the country -- the inheritor of a significant retail fortune, a Yale graduate, an heir to the Gap clothing empire built by his parents Donald and Doris Fisher. He did not seek publicity. He did not give many interviews. He was not known for the kind of theatrical ownership behavior that attracts media attention.
By 2024, Fisher had become, in the view of a substantial portion of the baseball-watching public, the worst owner in professional sports. That transformation -- from anonymous to widely despised -- is a story about the choices of one individual, the ecosystem that enabled those choices, and the way a drawn-out civic betrayal can produce a specific and durable kind of public contempt.
The Early Years
Fisher became the principal owner of the A's in 2005, partnering with Lew Wolff on the purchase. The deal valued the franchise at approximately $180 million, which looks like extraordinary value given that the franchise is now worth somewhere north of $1 billion by Forbes estimates.
The early Fisher years were not obviously catastrophic. The team under Billy Beane continued to field competitive rosters through the Moneyball approach, making playoff runs in 2006 and then again in the early 2010s. Fisher was not especially visible in those years. Beane and Wolff served as the public faces of the franchise.
The low-payroll approach that would become Fisher's defining characteristic was present from the beginning, but in the early years it produced enough wins to be defensible. The argument that a small-revenue franchise could compete through smart roster construction had genuine empirical support from the Moneyball era.
Where the defensibility eroded was in the stadium question. Fisher, from early in his ownership, made clear that a new ballpark was his condition for long-term commitment to the Oakland market. He spent significant resources exploring San Jose as an alternative. When that path was blocked by the Giants' territorial rights, and when Howard Terminal became the focus of the final push, Fisher's willingness to actually fund the project himself was consistently minimal.
The Payroll Problem
The numbers tell a straightforward story. During Fisher's ownership, the A's payroll ranked in the bottom three of MLB's thirty franchises for the majority of seasons. In several years they had the lowest payroll in the sport. In 2023, the year Fisher announced the Las Vegas move, the A's Opening Day payroll was approximately $57 million. The MLB average was around $140 million. The Yankees and Mets were each over $250 million.
The low payroll was not a product of limited resources. Fisher's net worth has been estimated by Forbes at approximately $2.6 billion. He is one of the wealthier owners in professional sports. The decision to operate the A's with a minimal payroll was a choice, consistently made over nearly two decades.
The standard defense of the approach -- that the A's were building through the draft and developing young talent, that big free-agent contracts are inefficient uses of capital -- contains elements of truth but does not fully account for what was actually happening. Teams can use analytics and development to be smart about player acquisition without being the lowest-spending franchise in the sport. The relationship between payroll and competitiveness is not linear, but at the extremes Fisher was operating in, there is a consistent correlation between investment and outcomes.
Oakland fans watched consecutive years of deliberately assembled mediocre rosters and were told the approach was actually sophisticated. They eventually stopped believing it.
The Relocation Process
How Fisher handled the relocation announcement is where the public narrative solidified against him.
The September 28, 2023, announcement that the team would leave Oakland was made without the kind of community engagement, acknowledgment of history, or expression of regret that might have softened the reaction. Fisher did not hold a press conference in Oakland. He did not meet with community leaders or season-ticket holders before the announcement. There was no farewell tour, no acknowledgment in the announcement itself that this was a loss for the city.
The comment that attracted the most sustained anger came in media interactions around the relocation announcement, when Fisher suggested that Oakland's fans had not shown sufficient support for the franchise. To Oakland fans who had watched Fisher systematically underspend on the roster for years and then blame the resulting poor attendance on their insufficient loyalty, this was not merely incorrect -- it was an insult.
The final game at the Coliseum was not organized with any formal farewell ceremony by the franchise. The postgame acknowledgment was minimal. The organization's apparent approach was to have the last game be as unremarkable as possible. The fans in attendance created their own ceremony, staying long after the game ended, staging tributes to the ballpark and the franchise that the organization itself did not provide.
The National Reaction
By the time the relocation was complete, Fisher had achieved a kind of negative celebrity that he had conspicuously avoided during his years of quiet ownership. Baseball media wrote extensively about the contrast between his wealth and his investment in the team. Features traced the history of ownership decisions that had contributed to the departure. Social media, where Oakland fans had long organized under slogans including "Sell the Team" directed at Fisher, amplified the criticism to audiences that had previously been unaware of the situation.
The ESPN documentary treatment of the Oakland sports departures, the various longform features in major publications, and the coverage of the Sacramento arrangement all centered Fisher as the agent of the departure in ways that were essentially accurate.
What emerged was a portrait of an ownership approach that treated a franchise as a financial instrument rather than as a community institution. In this reading, Fisher bought a franchise at below-market value in 2005, operated it with minimal investment to generate positive cash flow, and exited the Oakland market when the stadium economics no longer worked in his favor -- leaving behind a community that had invested decades of loyalty and civic identity in the team.
Whether that portrait is fully fair depends on how you weigh the legitimacy of the Oakland stadium impasse and the degree to which the city's failures contributed to the outcome. But even giving Fisher full credit for the honest obstacles he faced in Oakland, the pattern of minimal investment in the playing product over twenty years is difficult to defend.
The Las Vegas Future
Fisher remains the owner of the Las Vegas franchise. Whether the Las Vegas era will be different -- whether the new market, the new stadium, and the implicit pressure to prove the move was justified will produce a different ownership approach -- is genuinely unknowable.
Several sports business analysts have noted that the Las Vegas market will require a different investment posture than Oakland. The city has no existing fan base to draw on; building one requires winning, which requires spending. The economic model of entertainment-market baseball may actually create incentives for investment that the Oakland market did not.
Others note that Fisher's ownership patterns over twenty years have not changed in response to changing circumstances, and that there is no particular reason to expect Las Vegas to produce a different version of the same owner.
What is certain is that Fisher's reputation, built over decades of quiet anonymity, is now permanently associated with one of the most notable franchise departures in American professional sports. The circumstances of his ownership -- the low payrolls, the failed stadium negotiations, the departure announcement, the minimal farewell -- have been documented extensively and will follow the franchise in Las Vegas the way Finley's behavior followed the A's out of Oakland and out of Kansas City.
Legacies in professional sports ownership are made from the biggest decisions. Fisher's biggest decision was to leave Oakland. How Las Vegas judges the decision that brought them a franchise depends on what that franchise does next.
Support LV Athletics Nation by shopping through our affiliate links. Every purchase helps fund independent coverage of the A's relocation story.
Affiliate links. We may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.