Private Equity Franchise Ownership: Who Owns 259 Franchisors (2026 Study)

Private equity franchise ownership: the owner mix in 259 FDDs

Summary. About one franchisor in five in this sample has a stated private equity or fund owner, and about one in three of those whose owner type can be established. The private equity franchise share is therefore large, but founders, public companies and other private owners together outnumber funds among classified brands.

• 55 of 259 brands (21.2%) have a stated private equity or fund owner: 35 from FDD text and 20 from a fund’s portfolio page or a press release, because the FDD named the parent company but not the fund behind it.
• 36 of those 55 sources state control (majority, controlling or wholly owned); 19 state fund ownership without the size of the stake. Counting only stated control, the fund share is 13.9% of the sample.
• 36 brands (13.9%) belong to public companies, 55 (21.2%) to founders or other individuals and 12 (4.6%) to other private owners, such as a family trust company, a retailer-owned cooperative or a foreign private group.
• 101 brands (39.0%) could not be classified: 43 disclose no parent entity and do not name their owners, and 58 name a holding company without saying who owns it.

What the numbers mean. Item 1 of the FTC Franchise Rule requires a franchisor to name its parents and affiliates that offer franchises (16 CFR 436.5(a)), and a parent is any entity that controls it (16 CFR 436.1(m)). FTC guidance says Item 1 asks only for parents’ names and addresses (Compliance Guide, pp. 28 to 29), so nothing obliges a franchisor to say that a parent is a fund. The 21.2% figure is a floor for stated ownership, not an estimate of all fund ownership. A practitioner estimate of under 20% of active US brands (Global Franchise interview, 2024) gives no method, so it is not directly comparable.

Which sectors have the most fund-owned franchisors

Summary. Stated fund ownership is highest in home services and lowest in lodging, where public hotel companies dominate. Fitness and personal services, named in the planned angle, are not above the sample rate.

• Home services: 8 of 18 sample brands (44.4%) have a stated fund owner, the highest share of the 14 sectors.
• Automotive 35.3%; cleaning and restoration, education and children, and senior care 33.3% each.
• Fitness and personal services and beauty: 16.7% each (3 of 18 brands).
• Lodging: 0 fund-owned brands and 13 public-company brands of 18.

Limits. The sample was drawn to about 18 brands per sector, so sector shares rest on small counts: one brand moves a sector share by several points. Senior care has the most brands without a stated owner type (12 of 18), so its fund share is the most likely to be understated.

Multi-brand franchise platforms and brands per owner

Summary. A multi-brand franchise platform is an owner group that franchises several brands. 115 of 259 brands (44.4%) belong to one, and fund-owned brands are the group most often inside one: 43 brands, or 16.6% of the whole sample, are both fund owned and part of a multi-brand group.

• Share in a multi-brand owner group: fund owned 78.2%, public companies 86.1%, other private owners 75.0%, founders or individuals 18.2%, owner type not stated 21.8%.
• Among brands in a multi-brand group, the median group lists 6 franchise brands in Item 1; the largest lists 85 (a restaurant group that counts current and former US and Canadian brands).
• 19 owners or sponsors appear behind 2 or more of the sample brands, covering 52 brands. The largest is Roark Capital, behind 8 sample brands in automotive, food, cleaning and swim schools.

Read with care. A shared sponsor is not always a shared platform. Some FDDs list a fund’s other portfolio companies as affiliates (one Roark-owned FDD counts 51 franchise brands in its group), while others state that the fund’s other franchise brands are not under common control and are not affiliates. Item 1 also lists affiliates’ former franchise programs, so a group count can include brands no longer sold. Revenue models of platforms are covered in how franchisors make money; this report does not repeat them.

Fund-owned vs founder-owned franchises: size differs, fees do not

Summary. Fund-owned systems are larger, and tend to be older, than founder or individually owned ones, but their fees, investment ranges, territory protection and outlet exits do not differ measurably. These are associations in a stratified sample, not effects of ownership.

• Size: median 176 franchised outlets for fund-owned systems against 29 for founder or individually owned ones (p below 0.001). Fund-owned brands had the larger median system in 12 of the 13 sectors that have both fund-owned and other brands.
• Royalty: median 6.0% against 7.0% (p = 0.279). Against all other brands the medians are equal at 6.0% (p = 0.437). Within sectors the fund-owned median was higher in 5, lower in 5 and equal in 3 sectors. Data: royalty rates report.
• Initial investment: median Item 7 low estimate $287,800 against $191,992 (p = 0.254); high estimate $796,742 against $348,274 (p = 0.256). See franchise costs for what Item 7 covers.
• Territory: 74.5% of fund-owned and 80.0% of founder or individually owned brands grant a protected area (p = 0.650). The clearer gap is the reserved right to acquire, or be acquired by, a competing chain in the franchisee’s area: 85.5% against 67.3% (p = 0.042). Data: territory rights report.
• Outlet turnover: median latest-year exit rate 4.6% against 5.0% for systems with 10 or more outlets (p = 0.351); pooled 3-year rates 4.9% and 7.7%. Data: closure rates report.

Platform vs single-brand. The same comparison by platform membership, regardless of owner type: brands in a multi-brand owner group had a median 101 franchised outlets against 41.5 (p = 0.002) and a median Item 7 low estimate of $320,891 against $198,034 (p = 0.003). Fewer grant a protected area, 64.3% against 81.2% (p = 0.003). Hotel brands explain part of that gap: 11.1% of lodging brands grant a protected area, and outside lodging the shares are 72.7% and 82.4%. Royalties (6.0% vs 6.5%, p = 0.094) and exit rates (6.1% vs 4.9%, p = 0.221) did not differ measurably.

Context. Size and age travel together: fund-owned systems had franchised a median 19.5 years against 13.0, so the size gap partly reflects funds buying established systems. Royalty tests use the 55 fund-owned and 45 founder-owned brands with a percentage royalty; exit tests use 52 and 38 systems with 10 or more outlets. Small groups can hide modest differences, so “no measurable difference” is not proof of no difference.

Ownership changes disclosed in FDDs since 2023

Summary. 23 FDDs (8.9%) disclose a change of controlling owner dated 2023 or later. In 11 a fund became the controlling owner, in 7 another company or platform acquired the system, and in 4 founders or prior owners sold the business; in 1 new equity owners took over through a recapitalization.

• By year: 5 events dated 2023, 7 in 2024, 5 in 2025 and 6 in 2026 (to the latest FDD date, 2026-08-18).
• 14 of the 23 brands are fund owned at their FDD date.
• Of 42 fund-owned brands with a stated acquisition year, 30 (71.4%) came under their current fund owner in 2021 or later. That is a count, not a trend: funds sell holdings after some years, so a snapshot of current owners always leans recent.

Why counts are low. FTC guidance says a change in ownership alone does not make the former owner a predecessor (Compliance Guide, p. 29), so FDDs describe sales in different places and detail. This count covers only changes the FDD dates; it is not a deal count.

What changes for a franchisee when private equity buys the franchisor

Summary. A sale of the franchisor does not change the franchise agreement by itself: the contract stays in force and the new owner steps in. What can change is everything the contract leaves to the franchisor’s discretion, plus the terms offered at renewal.

• Assignment: 257 of 259 agreements (99.2%) let the franchisor assign the agreement to a buyer without franchisee consent (Item 17).
• Acquisitions inside your area: 185 of 259 FDDs reserve the right to acquire, or be acquired by, a chain that may then operate in the franchisee’s area; the share is 85.5% among fund-owned brands and 67.3% among founder or individually owned brands.
• Parent support: 25 of 55 fund-owned franchisors have a parent or affiliate guarantee in Item 21 (45.5%), against 3.6% of founder or individually owned ones; see the franchisor financial health review.
• Comments to the FTC: in a July 2024 staff report, private-equity takeovers ranked tenth of 12 franchisee concerns; commenters described higher fees, cost-cutting and changed renewal terms after acquisitions. FTC staff note the comments were not verified and are not necessarily representative (FTC Issue Spotlight).
• Contract trends: an IZA working paper coding about 4,500 chains from 2009 to 2024 found that chains adopting franchisor-favoring terms were 2 to 5 percentage points more likely to be acquired by private equity within five years, and the authors say the causality may run the other way (IZA DP 18660).

What to read in an FDD. Item 1 names every parent in the chain; Item 2 often shows fund partners on the board; Item 21 shows whether a parent guarantees the franchisor; Item 17 shows assignment rights. For the wider process see buying a franchise.

Where the ownership data stop

Summary. The data stop where disclosure stops. The FDD names parents, not their owners’ business models, and many smaller franchisors never say who owns them.

• We searched owner-published sources for 160 brands and found an ownership statement for 67; 93 searches found none. The shared web-search allowance ran out during this step, so part of the search relied on opening owners’ own sites directly.
• 5 brands changed owner after their FDD date; classifications stay at the FDD date.
• The sample is one FDD per brand, about 18 per sector, from Minnesota filings. It is not a random sample of the roughly 4,000 US franchisors the FTC counts (91 FR, May 2026).
• Brands without a stated owner type are younger: a median 10.0 years franchising against 14.0 for all 259 brands. For brand age see the emerging franchise brands study.