Has the Tsais' Social Justice Fund Really Invested $25M "In Brooklyn" Since 2020?
The owners of the Brooklyn Nets made big promises in 2020. Their summary lists significant efforts--but big gaps. Tax breaks & investment gains are far larger.
I’m publishing this initial article as a resource for others encountering the Social Justice Fund’s (SJF) new two-page Impact Summary, which states, without financial specifics, that they’ve invested $25 million in Brooklyn, as pledged, over five years. On Jan. 28, I submitted extensive questions to the SJF. See subsequent coverage here.1
In the wake of the 2020 police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis and regular demonstrations at the Barclays Center plaza, while the arena was closed during the pandemic, Joe and Clara Wu Tsai, owners of the Brooklyn Nets, New York Liberty, and the arena operating company, announced a Social Justice Commitment Statement.
“We stand in solidarity with the Black community, and all Indigenous people and People of Color, to end racism in our organization and in our society,” they stated.
A $50 million promise
As part of a 5-Point Plan, the Tsais promised “$50 million over 10 years for social justice initiatives and community investments that will benefit the BIPOC (especially Black) community, with a priority on Brooklyn.”
It was perhaps the most significant commitment announced by an NBA owner at the time, responding to the charged situation at the arena plaza, where angry protesters clashed with police, as well as—I suspect—a recognition of deep fissures in Brooklyn and the need to be credible to a mostly-Black Nets team.
It came three weeks after the NBA itself announced a new NBA Foundation, funded by team owners at $300 million over ten years, “to support Black communities and drive generational change.”2
Since then, the Joe and Clara Tsai Foundation’s Social Justice Fund has helped keep some 80 small businesses afloat, especially (as the image below suggests) in mostly Black Central Brooklyn, thanks to “character-based” lending under the EXCELerate Loan Fund, which qualified far more borrowers than banks would accept.
Pioneering new programs, the SJF has funded numerous unsung civic leaders and nonprofits, supported students with tech bootcamps and arts curricula, and even invested in start-ups, as the Impact Summary suggests.
It’s one of the larger philanthropic commitments focused broadly on Brooklyn, after Brooklyn Org (formally the Brooklyn Community Foundation), though citywide foundations like the New York Community Trust and the Robin Hood Foundation distribute more in Brooklyn.
Drawing on the SJF’s experience, Executive Director Gregg Bishop, at a symposium last June, focused on a more equitable Brooklyn, proposed grants up to $10,000 to help “small, upstart entrepreneurs in underserved communities,” suggesting “a clear role for creative, patient philanthropy.” (He appears regularly on panels regarding innovative philanthropy.)
Some SJF spending seems more conventional, such as for concerts at the arena plaza. Similarly, they funded playground renovations3 and support of established cultural organizations, both initiatives that previous Nets owners backed.4
Some efforts meld the Tsais’ interest as business owners and philanthropists. Those playground and basketball court renovations come with branding—and t-shirts—from Brooklyn Basketball, representing the Brooklyn Nets and New York Liberty, not the lesser-known Social Justice Fund.
The Social Justice Fund’s first press release, before its website was established, came from the Brooklyn Nets, on Dec. 17, 2020: Joe and Clara Tsai Announce First Five Black Leaders to Receive Grants From Social Justice Fund.
Making progress
The Social Justice Fund has come a long way in five years, with an array of programs, some more publicized than others, generating enthusiastic press coverage, but little public assessment.
(I expressed skepticism about one effort, in my Dec. 6, 2021, essay, Art or Advertising? The Contradictions of “You/We Belong Here” Neon Signage at Barclays Center.)
The Social Justice Fund serves not just to do civic good and boost the Tsais’ businesses, but also to help them win political allies, arguably complementing their company’s lobbying.
During an Aug. 2, 2022, New York Liberty game, Gov. Kathy Hochul participated in a ceremony honoring SJF awardees. A month earlier, Wu Tsai had made the maximum contribution to Hochul’s election fund, $69,700.
Last Nov. 14, at the Social Justice Fund’s Just Brooklyn Prize ceremony, honoring five local changemakers at the Barclays Center, Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso hailed Wu Tsai for finding “organizations from Brooklyn that are rooted in Brooklyn.”
“Clara could have easily chosen not to do front-facing philanthropic work,” said Reynoso, a member of the prize selection committee. “They could have given a ton of money to organizations and just walked away, and they would have gotten credit for it.”
A five-year tally: $25M?
Recently, the Social Justice Fund quietly published its “5-Year Impact Report,” which linked to the summary document, claiming “$25 million invested in Brooklyn.” (I noticed it Jan. 27.)
While the spending is substantial, it’s hard to conclude that it totals $25 million.5 The price tags announced for specific programs, as far as I can tell, barely exceed $10 million, even with my added annotations.
However, their summary omits details of numerous grants, as well as expenses for staff, events, public relations, and consultants. Do they count the provision of the Barclays Center—for indoor and outdoor events—as an in-kind contribution and thus part of the “investment”?
By contrast, the Social Justice Fund’s frequent collaborator, Brooklyn Org, more transparently lists grant recipients and spending. (It gave away about $18.4 million in 2024.)6
I’ve sought more details about the SJF’s specific spending and asked about various programs, trying to understand how they’ve worked and evolved.
The Brooklyn Org relationship
In five years, the Social Justice Fund and Wu Tsai have become a major player in the borough’s philanthropy, not only with high-profile announcements, but also with an enduring relationship with Brooklyn Org.7
Each year, five nonprofits receive Brooklyn Org’s $100,000 “no strings attached” Spark Prize and are celebrated at a gala breakfast.
In 2022, the charity honored Wu Tsai, described as “founder of The Joe and Clara Tsai Foundation Social Justice Fund,” at the Spark Prize Breakfast. (That phrasing downplays her husband.8)
The event also included remarks from SJF Executive Director Bishop, a former Commissioner of the NYC Department of Small Business Services. The Social Justice Fund was among the event donors.
Starting last year and continuing next month, the Spark Prize breakfast has been held at the Barclays Center.
“In Brooklyn”?
The SJF’s single largest expenditure is $4 million invested in start-up companies as part of the BK-XL accelerator, aimed to help underrepresented founders turn their fledgling firms into financial successes.
While the program clearly fills a need—I’ll write about BK-XL separately—it’s tough to claim that the $4 million represents an investment “in Brooklyn,” given that few of the companies have moved to Brooklyn permanently.
Even if they all stayed in Brooklyn, that sum doesn’t necessarily translate into local benefits or, as the Social Justice Fund website suggests, “lasting change.”
The Tsais may be betting that the investment stake they’ve taken in the companies might allow them to cash out by 2030, the year the Social Justice Fund commitment expires, and thus endow ongoing philanthropic efforts. But that’s hardly certain.
Broader perspective: the CBA
The $50 million pledged is more significant in many—but not all—ways than the overhyped Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), signed by original developer Forest City Ratner, which aimed to move the New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn and develop a 16-tower real estate project.9
After all, the CBA almost completely omitted dollar figures. Notably, it promised but failed to deliver the 2,250 units of below-market affordable housing. Today, not only do 876 units remain unbuilt, but those delivered are aimed at higher-income residents than promised.
The Social Justice Fund has, perhaps unsurprisingly, mostly steered clear of the housing issue, given the huge gulf between what $5 million a year might support and the borough’s housing needs. (I wouldn’t expect them to fund exponents of a wealth tax, either.)
Broader perspective: tax breaks
Another contrast: while the team owners have promised $5 million a year, they take advantage of a tax-exempt arena site, most recently valued at $123.6 million, as I wrote last March.
To pay off arena construction, the arena operators make payments in lieu of taxes, or PILOTs, most recently $40.1 million, of which $11.7 million was returned for use in operations and maintenance.
As watchdog New York State legislator Richard Brodsky suggested to Congress in October 2008, “It is as though you built an extension on your house and said to the local taxing authority, send my tax payments to the bank to pay off the mortgage.”
Brodsky was focusing on Yankee Stadium, but this applies to other New York venues as well.10
Broader perspective: rising team value
Meanwhile, the value of the Nets and the arena company has skyrocketed. The Tsais completed their purchase of the holding company BSE Global in 2019, valued between $3 billion and $3.3 billion.
Later, they bought the WNBA’s New York Liberty for a song and savvily invested in the team, creating a new fan base and winning a championship.
In 2024, Julia Koch and her family bought a minority stake in BSE, valuing the holding company at a reported $5.8 billion. In 2025, a minority share investment in Liberty alone valued the team at a reported $450 million.
As of last year, Brooklyn Sports & Entertainment—they recently reverted to the old name—was worth $6.22 billion, according to Sportico, and $5.6 billion, according to Forbes.
The government-enabled arena11 has helped the Tsais grow their wealth dramatically.
So, rather than see the Tsais’ philanthropic investments as the culmination of their civic obligation, it might be worth re-assessing decisions by the city and state to subsidize, directly and indirectly, all major team venues, since they house increasingly valuable “sports entertainment corporations.”
After all, actual taxes might fund a lot more playground renovations.
In my lengthy list of questions sent Jan. 28, I asked for at least a partial response by Feb. 2. On Feb. 3, I received a brief response from a public relations representative, saying they needed at least a few more days. I will incorporate their answers into future coverage.
It also came a day before the impromptu player strike over the police shooting of a Black man in Kenosha, WI, which might be seen as getting ahead of player sentiment.
Such spending is not unique. The Los Angeles Clippers, starting in 2018, pledged $10 million to rehabilitate 350 public basketball courts in four years.
Supporters might argue that such “investments” also have knock-on effects from growing businesses and nonprofits’ capacity building.
So does the New York Community Trust, which gives significant sums to Brooklyn organizations.
It also works closely with the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce, which helped manage the EXCELerate loan program.
This branding of Wu Tsai as the sole founder helps distance the Social Justice Fund from her husband, Executive Chairman of the Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba, and his notorious support for the Chinese regime. ESPN on April 14, 202,2 published a tough article, Brooklyn Nets owner Joe Tsai is the face of NBA’s uneasy China relationship, suggesting a contradiction between Tsai’s support for progressive causes in the United States and Alibaba’s connections to repression.
More recently, Los Angeles Clippers owner Steve Ballmer, building a new arena in Inglewood, promised $100 million as part of a CBA, with $75 million for affordable housing—a pledge that has its detractors and defenders, as reported by Capital and Main.
In 2021, after Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert promised $500 million over 10 years to Detroit, where his Rocket Mortgage is based, one Cleveland Councilman suggested Gilbert do the same for Cleveland, as News 5 Cleveland reported, given public financial support for arena renovations.
Government assistance includes not just tax breaks and tax-exempt financing, but direct subsidies, low-cost city property, land assembly via eminent domain, the ability to sell naming rights, and more.
Norman, if I may respond to your rhetorical question, "Do they count the provision of the Barclays Center—for indoor and outdoor events—as an in-kind contribution and thus part of the “investment”?..." I would say almost certainly yes. The Brooklyn Entertainment Center LLC is a privately owned entity that holds the operational lease for the Barclays Center and is the obligor on the arena's debt. This legal separation allows non-recourse debt financing - limiting the liability to the value of the collateral (venue). The revenue (ticketing, concessions, parking and perhaps some merchandising) bypass the (paying) tenant franchises (Nets and Liberty) and go to servicing bond obligations. It would seem likely to me that use of the venue would be subject to internally applied charges, which means the 'donation' would take the form of a payment that never leaves the Tsai financial ecosystem. I am working on something that has a small overlap with your impressive body of work.