Chicago Sky Owner Accused of 'Self-Dealing' in Lawsuit

Majority owner Michael Alter allegedly devalued other investors' shares to benefit himself

Feb. 1, 2026 at 10:55am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The majority owner of the Chicago Sky, Michael Alter, has been accused in a lawsuit of "self-dealing" and unfairly shortchanging other team investors. The plaintiff, minority owner Michael Rogers, claims Alter manipulated the business to devalue the shares of other investors as the team's valuation has skyrocketed in recent years.

Why it matters

The lawsuit highlights growing tensions between majority and minority owners in professional sports franchises, especially as team valuations have surged. It raises questions about the fiduciary duties of majority owners and whether they are fairly distributing the financial gains from the team's success.

The details

According to the lawsuit, Alter is accused of violating his duties to the team and other investors, running the team with "blatant disregard for the operating agreement and minimum standards of competence for business operations." The lawsuit alleges Alter claimed "first priority" to the team's income over other investors, benefiting himself and his family to the tune of millions of dollars. Parts of the complaint have been redacted, so the full details of the allegations are unclear.

  • The lawsuit was filed last week in Cook County Circuit Court.
  • Less than three years ago, the Sky's valuation was pegged at $85 million.
  • In 2025, Forbes listed the franchise's valuation at $240 million.

The players

Michael Alter

The majority owner of the Chicago Sky.

Michael Rogers

A minority owner of the Chicago Sky who filed the lawsuit against Alter.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Alter's operation has been a mess.”

— Michael Rogers, Minority owner (Court documents)

What’s next

The judge will need to review the details of the lawsuit and determine whether Alter's actions violated his duties to the other team investors.

The takeaway

This case highlights the potential conflicts that can arise between majority and minority owners in professional sports franchises, especially as team valuations continue to rise rapidly. It underscores the importance of clear governance structures and fiduciary responsibilities to ensure all investors are treated fairly.