Examining the Seattle Seahawks Trust Stewardship

In 1997, 44 year-old Paul Allen gave up $194 million of his fortune so he could buy the Seattle Seahawks. When Bill Gates’ seventh grade friend died twenty years later with no spouse or children, control of everything was given to his younger sister, Jody. 

Jody Allen is trustee of the Paul G. Allen Trust, which by all accounts holds just over $20 billion in assets. Allen owned everything from real estate, yachts, art, and the football team. But he was one of many billionaires who pledged to give it all away. Even before he was a signer of the Giving Pledge, he was making moves as a philanthropist. An attorney changed all that. 

A year after he passed, public statements indicated that the estate’s holdings would be sold and directed to philanthropy. So, why does the trust still own the Seahawks eight years later?

From 2018 through 2023, the Seahawks’ on-field performance fluctuated, but their value continued to increase:

Year Record Value

2018  10–6 ~$2.58B
2019 11–5 ~$2.80B
2020 12–4 ~$3.08B
2021 7–10  ~$3.50B
2022 9–8  ~$4.00B
2023 9–8  ~$4.50B

2024 10–7 ~$5.50B

2025 14–3 ~$6.50B

During the same period, NFL franchise valuations broadly climbed at an estimated 8–9 percent annually, buoyed by expanding media contracts, limited franchise supply and growing institutional interest in sports ownership. The Seahawks participated fully in that appreciation. 

In purely financial terms, Ms. Allen’s patience appears to have been lucrative and certainly benefited the recipient. Yet the extended timeline raises a more subtle question, one that goes beyond football economics and drifts into my world of fiduciary law.

Trustees owe duties of loyalty and prudence. Their mandate is not merely to grow assets, but to administer them in accordance with the governing instrument and the settlor’s intent. When a trust’s stated objective is ultimately to convert assets into charitable funding, timing becomes more than a strategic consideration; it becomes part of the fiduciary calculus. 

Fact: trustees and their attorneys are paid from trust funds. 

Did the trust contemplate prolonged operation of a professional sports franchise? It might have.
Was a timetable discussed for distribution? Surely. Was a liquidation date mandated? Probably not. Were charitable beneficiaries happy to wait while asset values potentially increased? Never. So who benefited from this delay?

Trustees and their attorneys are being paid from this trust’s funds. Who can make the trustee act? The beneficiaries can object to how the trustee is managing the trust, but two things can prevent them from doing that. First, many trusts have a challenge clause that says if anyone sues regarding the trust, they get nothing. Second, a trustee’s discretion is nearly absolute. That means they can act with near total autonomy when making decisions as the trustee. 

Public reporting shows the NFL assessed a $5 million fine to the team last year because the ownership structure didn’t comply with NFL rules. The fine was reportedly held in abeyance. 

Then the Seahawks went and won the Super Bowl. Of course, their value has now increased exponentially. Thus, if the team was sold in 2018, charities would have received billions less than they may receive today. The trustee, in that view, fulfilled her duty by maximizing value before distribution. Then again, it’s been eight years and the trust still controls a substantial portion of the assets, including another sports team that it is also in the process of selling, the Portland Trailblazers.

This tension is not unique. Many families increasingly hold concentrated and complex assets like sports teams, private companies, and art collections inside trusts designed for eventual charitable distribution. The design of those trusts determines whether stewardship resembles strategy or a conflict that benefits non-beneficiaries.

The longer a trust remains active, the longer trustees and professional advisors remain engaged and paid. That reality does not imply impropriety, but it underscores why fiduciary law is structured around incentive aligning with intent of the settler.

The Seahawks’ rise in valuation will likely be remembered as a financial success. Whether it represents exemplary estate execution or fortunate market timing depends less on the final sale price than on the framework directing it. 

Good estate administration begins with good planning.